Stunning Report: "Stand Your Ground" Laws Responsible for 500-700 Homicides Per year

Interesting, isn't it? If a state adopts a shall-carry law and crime goes down, the change in law was not the reason and should get no credit, according to some. And if a state adopts SYG (at a time when the economy is tanking and unempoyment is rising) and murders go up, then the change of law was responsible for the change.

We have heard comments from some state prosecutors that they were willing to use SYG as an excuse not to bother charging gang members for murder. One wonders if that dereliction of duty might explain some of the rise in murders.

In fact, they say the response of criminals to the idea that the victim may be armed is to arm themselves as well, turning what otherwise would have been burglaries and robberies into homicides.

Click to expand...

The study in no way addresses or supports this faerie-tale conclusion.

The report also shows an increase in what is termed 'justifiable homicide' by up to 50% annually.

Click to expand...

Bogus statistic. Since SYG provides a way of quicky labeling a shooting justified (as opposed to months or years later), we would expect the number of shootings labeled "justified" to rise, even if the actual number went down.

So defending yourself from a predator is now to be considered homicide? That is a pretty broad definition of homicide. Would police officers shooting a bad guy during a crime also be considered homicide?

Actually, killing someone is self defense is still homicide, it's just not murder, and it's not illegal.

This might be the new stupidest thing I've ever heard...

Never mind that:

"Overall, the estimated volume of violent crimes in 2010 dropped 6 percent compared to the 2009 figure, the fourth consecutive year it has declined."

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911

Soooooo.....what they're saying is that, by arming against and resisting home invaders we're actually INCREASING violent crime? Because criminals are only armed because their VICTIMS are armed?

Wow. That's brilliant logic! Hey, by extending that logic in the other direction, you find that, by leaving your doors unlocked and posting an invitation in your yard for someone to come take your stuff, you'd not only end violent home invasions, but forced entry and theft as well. Appeasement is clearly the best course of action to prevent crime. Give them your stuff and they'll leave you alone...

</sarcasm>

If a criminal has the ability to arm himself, he will be armed. One doesn't break into another person's home unarmed if it can be avoided. If a home invader is unarmed, it's because he lacks the ability or forethought to arm himself. Whether the homeowner is armed or not doesn't factor into whether or not the criminal is armed, but it does factor into whether he wants to try to break into that home.

I would rather be an armed citizen facing an armed criminal than an unarmed citizen facing an unarmed criminal. At least then, my small frame is on equal footing.

So defending yourself from a predator is now to be considered homicide? That is a pretty broad definition of homicide.

Click to expand...

The legal definition of homicide and the dictionary definition of homicide vary a little. In legal-ese, homicide is simply one human being killing another. The title is obviously anti-gun like the article. If it were honest reporting, they would have listed the number of "justified" homicides.

Would police officers shooting a bad guy during a crime also be considered homicide?

Click to expand...

Yes.

"Regardless, the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense laws is increased homicide," the report concludes.

Click to expand...

That statement is pretty much spot on. It is a little hard to deny. If we are free to use deadly force to defend against deadly force, there are going to be casualties (hopefully on the bad guy side of things). If these laws weren't already in place in a particular state, then you may see a rise in justifiable homicides due to people being able to defend themselves legally. Which is sort of the point of strengthening self defense laws, isn't it?

Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra of the Texas A&M University Department of Economics say in their report.

Click to expand...

Ah... Why are these two members of the Economics Department considered to be qualified to write a report on crime issues? If they aren't qualified what is the value of their findings?

I noticed that of the approximately 8 or 9 responses none were supportive of the article. Wonder why?

So defending yourself from a predator is now to be considered homicide? That is a pretty broad definition of homicide. Would police officers shooting a bad guy during a crime also be considered homicide?

Click to expand...

Technically, by definition, yes.
Homicide is just killing another human. Which, unfortunately, is often when the actual threat stops.
Notice they said 'homicide' and not 'murder,' because the latter would mean that people are intentionally killing people that just look at them the wrong way. Instead, the way they phrase it only makes it sound like that.

Notice they said 'homicide' and not 'murder,' because the latter would mean that people are intentionally killing people that just look at them the wrong way. Instead, the way they phrase it only makes it sound like that.

Click to expand...

Intentional is not a prerequisite of murder. Unlawful homicide is the more exact definition. Though often a lesser charge is applied (vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter, etc), the unintentional but still unlawful killing of one person by another can still be classified as murder.

The legal definition of Murder is "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse"

As stated, of course, the word homicide simply means the killing of one human being by another, and does not differentiate between lawful or unlawful. Unfortunately, it is used correctly but with inflammatory intentions in articles like this, because for many, homicide has become synonymous with murder.

Ya dang redneck neanderthals, how dare you protect yourselves against the thugs, punks, and career criminals. Don't you know the only real dangers in life are transfats, 32 ounce sodas, and home schooling?

That's funny, because while i was reading I was thinking to myself "This was written by somebody who has clearly never been robbed, raped, assaulted or otherwise put in fear of their life or safety, and for whom the definition of a bad day is getting their iced-skinny-double-soy-caramel-macchiato at 190 degrees instead of 195..."

So wait.... Assuming all facts are correct in the study, they saw a 7-9 percent increase overall in the rate of homicides (despite there actually being a decrease in homicide)... But also finds a 50% increase in the amount of justified homicides? ... Meaning that the 7-9 percent increase could be entirely composed of justified homicides?

What's the problem again?

I just wanted to say, though, I don't thank changing laws like SYG is going to affect whether or not your average thug will commit a crime. He's not paying attention to the laws, and probably isn't checking the news (since your average thug is in the age range that doesn't care about the news), so he doesn't know the laws have been changed. Thus, when he puts someone in a self defense situation and the person actually defends him/herself, it may result in a homicide.

I'm not saying SYG is bad, or the cause of the homicide. It is the criminal temporarily suspending his right to safety by intentionally endangering others. But I can see how shortly after a law is passed, violence goes up. The thugs aren't prepared for it.

On the other hand, if there was a law like: "Every household MUST own and maintain a firearm, unless not legally able to obtain one." Then thugs would start talking to each other and crime would go down.

Of course, I don't think gun laws either way will increase or reduce crime by much. What we need is a society based on humility and respect, instead of blame and greed. Then we can all go to the range together and have fun

A couple of things. First off, by all accounts there are as high as 38,317 (CDC, 2005) firearms related deaths and as low as 18,000 per year. (using the New England Journal of Medicines numbers that of the 38,317, 53 percent are actually suicides) This increase of 7 to 9 percent would be much higher using those numbers. According to the article, there is an increase of 500-700 per year. So which is it? Are the firearms related deaths actually lower per year? Or did they screw up in their calculations? What is the number they are actually using to come up with the 7 to 9 percent? I tend to believe that firearms related deaths are actually decreasing if you use the widely quoted 2005 stats. I might also add that personally if someone uses a firearm in defense of their person or family it is a good thing. The increase could be due to the fact that people are using firearms in this country to defend themselves instead of ending up as victims. In my mind, that is a really good thing.

Nothing like lies spead by unqualifed Egg heads in a Southern college
One of my late great uncles ran a polling company and said I can give you the TRUTH or what you want to hear. This pair of Economic Proffs are doing the latter.

All Good Aggies should contact TAMU and get this paired sensored or fired.

I doubt that many robbers/burglars will want to carry out their chosen profession in places where the residents might be home, might be armed, and know that the law is on their side.

A spate of well-publicized would-be robberies and burglaries turned into self-defense homicides should lead to fewer robberies and burglaries, thus fewer self-defense homicides.

Good thing that homicides are up, that makes the number of murders down when considering justified self defense shootings. Nice way to put an anti-gun spin on an otherwise positive statistic.

Read the report --> http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf. Then criticize.

Also, the researchers seem to be highly qualified to run this kind of statistical analysis. They do so on a routine basis; i.e. examine data and draw conclusions. It could be gun violence or soybean crops, numbers is numbers.

Deleted.

Ya'll forget that Professor John Lott is an Econonomics teacher, whose seminal study produced the book "More Guns, Less Crime".
ll

A bump of 3,000+ acts of violence in a population of 300 million is vastly to small to be meaningful to the whole of society.

With how crappy the jobs market is the last five years, and how desperate a lot of people are. I'd say that it only going up a few thousand is remarkable, apparently people are less inclined to violence then in past generations.

"Since Florida adopted the first castle doctrine law in 2005.."
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

Hang on a second! These guys don't even know the difference between the CASTLE DOCTRINE, which dates back to English common law and the recent "stand your ground" law. Ten seconds on wiki could have clarified that for them. Castle doctrine finds some expression in all 50 states, from formal statute such as Texas' to general common law. Florida was NOT the first state to codify the castle doctrine. A lot of code goes back decades, and case law goes back a century and a half or more.

So, basically, they failed in the first sentence. The underpinnings of their whole study are therefore flawed. The change they believe occurred did not actually occur, and whatever correlation they believe they found between the states "adopting the castle doctrine" after 2005 would therefore exist only in their own minds.

I'm actually shocked at the magnitude of this error. The distinction between these laws is sometimes lost in the media hype, but any academic should know enough to distinguish between them. For one thing any study looking at CD would need to exclude incidents outside homes. And conversely any study seeking to see if SYG had an impact would need to exclude incidents covered by the earlier CD.