FBI: Justifiable homicides at highest in more than a decade

[Jeff White]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-14-justifiable_N.htm

FBI: Justifiable homicides at highest in more than a decade
Updated 1h 14m ago
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

The number of justifiable homicides committed by police and private citizens has been rising in the past two years to their highest levels in more than a decade, reflecting a shoot-first philosophy in dealing with crime, say law enforcement analysts.

The 391 killings by police that were ruled justifiable in 2007 were the most since 1994, FBI statistics show. The 254 killings by private individuals found to be self-defense were the most since 1997.

The FBI says a homicide committed by a private citizen is justified when a person is slain during the commission of a felony, such as a burglary or robbery. Police are justified, the FBI says, when felons are killed while the officer is acting in the line of duty. Rulings on these deaths are usually made by the local police agencies involved.

Some law enforcement analysts say the numbers represent changing attitudes on the streets, where police have felt more threatened by well-armed offenders, and citizens have taken greater responsibility for their own safety.

Northeastern University criminal justice professor James Alan Fox describes an emerging "shoot-first" mentality by police and private citizens. For several years, police departments have armed their officers with higher-powered weapons to keep pace with criminal gangs. "Clearly there is a message out there that citizens may be able to defend themselves" as well, he says.

Alfred Blumstein, a Carnegie Mellon University criminologist, says the gun "legalization movement" also may have helped create a "greater willingness" among citizens to act in self-defense.

Forty-eight states provide various rights to carry firearms. Illinois and Wisconsin do not, according to the National Rifle Association. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in June carved out a right to individual gun ownership, ruling that the Second Amendment allows citizens to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

The NRA and other analysts say most laws allowing gun possession have existed for years and would not likely account for a recent spike in self-defense killings.

Instead, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and chief executive officer, says the Sept. 11 attacks and the widespread looting and violence after Hurricane Katrina spurred some people to take more responsibility for their own safety.

Immediately after those events, LaPierre says the group's gun-safety trainers reported "big increases" in NRA-sponsored courses. "Americans are simply refusing to be victims," he says.

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck says the FBI underestimates self-defense killings by citizens because the ones that are not precipitated by felony crimes may not get counted. "Less than a third of (citizen killings) are reported," he says.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Provide Rights?

Forty-eight states provide various rights to carry firearms.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Since when do states provide rights?

Interesting stats, though.

I wonder if the "criminal community" is paying attention and, if so, what their response will be?

 

[Jeff White]

I wonder if the "criminal community" is paying attention and, if so, what their response will be?

I doubt the criminal community cares. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that all of the 254 justifiable civilian homicides were text book good guy on bad guy killings. I would bet that is each one was researched we'd find that a significant number of them were bad guy on bad guy, i.e. drug dealers successfully defending themselves from those who would rob them of their drugs or cash.

Jeff

 

[foghornl]

Just my humble opinion & observations:

1. The Criminal Element mindset has shifted from "take the money/stuff & run" to "Leave NO Breathing Witnesses Behind".

2. The long-time message of 'just give them what they want, and they'll go away without hurting you' is being proven every day to be wrong.

3. Three Strikes laws make repeat offenders want to escape the scene of the crime at ALL costs, no matter if that cost is the life of 'Johnny Law' or Jon & Jan Q. Private-Citizen. (review item 1 again)

 

[m700m]

shoot first mentality?, as opposed to what, being attacked, rapped, robed, and then exercising my right of self defense? i believe i will shoot at the first sign/threat of deadly force. otherwise i will not have a chance to preserve my/families life, liberty. if i fail to act first, well i guess, i will finish last/body bag.

 

[hdrk1955]

I feel its not only my right to defend myself and my family but it is also my personal responsibilty. I would hope that many people feel the same way. Good thread Jeff.

 

[Larry E]

I'd say that 254 justified civilian shootings is probably not out of line. Drug dealers and other criminals usually don't hang around to 'splain to LE that "this guy tried to steal my coke or meth or money, so I offed him."

If most criminals see a gun they're likely to turn tail and run unless they're high on something or totally stupid. There may be some intelligent crooks, but mostly they're too lazy to work and only brave when they've got the upper hand IMHO.

 

[Jeff White]

Drug dealers and other criminals usually don't hang around to 'splain to LE that "this guy tried to steal my coke or meth or money, so I offed him."

No, but when they are tracked down (after all, the police do actually look into these things) the story comes out. Self defense is self defense, even if you are defending yourself while dealing drugs.

Jeff

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

have to disagree, self-defense is not always self-defense...
I.E. I try to rob you, ala strong arm (no weapon),you pull a gun to defend yourself, we struggle, I get your weapon and shoot you... I was only trying to get a few bucks from you, and you up'd the anty, right? But I was defending my life... Or how about a car thief shooting you when you confront him with a ball bat as he tries to steal your car...
So, a drug dealer (usually not babes in the woods from my experience) has put him or herself in the precarious position of dealing in the grey or black market of things and shouldn't be afforded the same benefits as Joe Blow walking down the street, set upon by thugs who then defends himself... Maybe some mitigation in as far as punishment but not even the same ballpark... (Unlawful Possession of A Firearm, Felon in Possession, etc, manslaughter rather than straight up Murder 1...)
Or course many fallback to the weak arguement of "oh drugs should be legal" but in a country where we as a society we can't handleour liquor properly, anyone who thinks drugs would be any different is just fooling themself...
I knew plenty of car thieves and dopers who had plenty money and commited crimes for the thrill rather than out of neccesity... Methheads especially... 'cause they're worthless...

 

[BigO01]

I doubt the criminal community cares. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that all of the 254 justifiable civilian homicides were text book good guy on bad guy killings. I would bet that is each one was researched we'd find that a significant number of them were bad guy on bad guy, i.e. drug dealers successfully defending themselves from those who would rob them of their drugs or cash.

Doesn't that seem a bit improbable ?

Most drug dealers have criminal felony records and would be prohibited from possessing a gun much less owning it so finding a shooting involving them as "justifiable homicide" seems unlikely .

The otherwise justifiable shooting in Massachusetts brought to the publics attention in the Bush-Dukakis Presidential contest wasn't ruled justifiable despite the fact the shooter didn't have a criminal record and the only law he was breaking was in itself criminal by banning citizens from owning handguns .

Michael Dukakis being the Democratic scum he is took pride in throwing an otherwise law abiding man in jail for daring to defend himself and family in their home from an armed criminal because he broke "The law" by simply having the gun .

 

[JKimball]

Interesting article. They provided a little graph on the side that showed the "spike" in justifiable homicides. Personally, it doesn't look like much of a spike to me.

I'm guessing the data didn't spark this article. Someone wanted to write this article and so they went out and found some data that might conceivably support their theory about gun nuts running around shooting first. It's called "confirmation bias."

Interesting it didn't mention that the overall homicide rate in 2007 was about 37% less than it was in 1994, representing 6401 fewer deaths. I'm not saying there is a connection there, but I would like to see that line included in the graph.

In any case, the way the two lines in the graph follow each other so closely is a likely indicator that there is some other element affecting this trend than any changes in gun laws, or an increase in private citizens carrying weapons, or a change in the mentality of shooting for self defense.

 

[Jeff White]

I.E. I try to rob you, ala strong arm (no weapon),you pull a gun to defend yourself, we struggle, I get your weapon and shoot you... I was only trying to get a few bucks from you, and you up'd the anty, right? But I was defending my life... Or how about a car thief shooting you when you confront him with a ball bat as he tries to steal your car...

Neither one of those cases is self defense. Not even close. Picture this, scumbag A is dealing crack out of his apartment. Scumbag B decides to rip off scumbag A, enters the apartment with a drawn weapon, scumbag A blows scumbag B away with shotgun he keeps under the coffee table to protect his stash. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. The fact that scumbag A was dealing drugs at the time has no legal bearing on his right to defend his life. In both of your examples an aggressor killed an innocent person.

Doesn't that seem a bit improbable ?

It's not improbable at all, in fact it happens all the time.

Most drug dealers have criminal felony records and would be prohibited from possessing a gun much less owning it so finding a shooting involving them as "justifiable homicide" seems unlikely .

If the act of defense of one's life is legal, if it meets all the criteria for it being a legally justified shooting, then the legality of the tool that was used is immaterial. That doesn't mean that the shooter can't and won't be charged with being a felon in possession of a gun, but he won't be charged with murder, because his use of that illegally held gun was justified.

The otherwise justifiable shooting in Massachusetts brought to the publics attention in the Bush-Dukakis Presidential contest wasn't ruled justifiable despite the fact the shooter didn't have a criminal record and the only law he was breaking was in itself criminal by banning citizens from owning handguns .

Was he charged with murder or was he charged with illegally possessing the handgun he used? I doubt he was charged with the death of the intruder. Got a link?

 

[tigre]

Interesting article. They provided a little graph on the side that showed the "spike" in justifiable homicides. Personally, it doesn't look like much of a spike to me.

Looks even less like a spike here. That's some awfully funny reportin' they've got there.

 

[contenderman]

In many cities, as the public has encountered growing violent crime, with an increasing number of officers wounded or killed in the line of duty ... plus in response to demands on the political "powers" to be, to crack down on crime, there is more rational acceptance that officer (or civilian) involved shootings (killings) were/are unavoidable. And there seems to be fewer attempts to persecute/prosecute the individual involved in the shooting(s).

Furthermore, in the civilian sector, in the past few years a number of states have moved to a "shall issue" state and therefore there are now more armed citizens to resist attacks, robberies, etc.

Now another step in the process should be the elimination of the civil suits against officers or civilians that have been cleared in a shooting. Hardly a week goes by that the news "reports" some "bereaved" family suing a city, officer(s) and/or civilian(s) because because their "would never hurt nobody, honor student, etc." was gunned down with excessive force. (e.g. they shot the fool rather than get hurt or killed their self).

:banghead:

 

[ServiceSoon]

It amazes me that people say citizens don't need to carry a firearm and police do when the justifiable homicide rates are very close between those two statistics.

 

[Eightball]

The number of justifiable homicides committed by police and private citizens has been rising in the past two years to their highest levels in more than a decade, reflecting a shoot-first philosophy in dealing with crime, say law enforcement analysts.

The solution for a rise in violent criminal activity is more dead criminals. If enough criminals are legally killed, maybe the rest of them will get the message "hey, this self-defense thing is hurting our livelihood."

Either that, or they'll all go to Chicago, where you check your SD rights at the door.

 

[Onmilo]

Individual states provide rights to their citizens and the citizens of each state are expected to follow the laws imposed by the individual state.

Each individual state is united to provide for the common defense of the union proper.
Each individual state is allowed and encouraged to provide governing bodies for local and statewide interests of the citizens of that state.
The states are also encouraged to provide elected officials to preside over the goverment of the union proper.

If the United States did not follow this form of government we would in fact, be a monarchy.

If you don't like the laws your individual state has incorporated then you as a citizen have a right to try and change the laws for the good of the community.
Failing this, you are absolutely free to relocate to another united state in which the laws better suit your views.

I love this county!

 

[devilc]

...

 

[rocinante]

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in June carved out a right to individual gun ownership, ruling that the Second Amendment allows citizens to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

Whoever wrote the article has an anti bend clearly reflected in the choice of words above. To him "carved out" makes it sound like the court created some novel new interpretation rather than affirming a right that Americans and the courts didn't even question for most of our existence. Even the choice of word "allows" grits against my nerves and the narrowness of in their homes for self-defense galls. I have a few guns I keep just because I think they are pretty and make awesome fireballs and impressive holes in stuff when shot. What about that? huh? Pinhead.

As far as the spike sounds like good gun control to me. They did not miss.

 

[TAB]

it would be intresting to compare those stats with that of violent crimes commited. I would be willing to bet that the numbers would be very simlar.

 

[oldgold]

The 254 killings by private individuals

"Less than a third of (citizen killings) are reported," he says.

Actual numbers for civilians could be as high as 750. More in line with a quote I've heard that civilians out do police by two to one.

After all the are more armed civilians than police.

 

[MachIVshooter]

No, but when they are tracked down (after all, the police do actually look into these things) the story comes out. Self defense is self defense, even if you are defending yourself while dealing drugs.

In Colorado, if someone dies during the commission of a felonious act, it's felony murder. Self-defense claims go right out the window if your criminal activity put you in that position.

 

[Mannlicher]

I am sure that due to a quicker repsonse by Citizens, there is a concomitant drop in deaths among Citizens that were confronted by an armed assailant. This might not be reported though.

 

[Phil Lee]

In the other thread on this topic (closed by Jeff White) Beagle-zebub gave a quote from Kleck and asked:

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck says the FBI underestimates self-defense killings by citizens because the ones that are not precipitated by felony crimes may not get counted. "Less than a third of (citizen killings) are reported," he says.

Could someone explain exactly what this means? (What it is trying to be expressed.) Does the FBI only count the justifiable homicides when a felony has been committed, rather than when it is about to be committed? I could read that snippet a number of different ways.

This topic is fairly old and it is worth understanding past discussions. We know that the FBI under reports defensive gun uses (DGUs) by citizens. We know the FBI UCR reports a shooting death by a citizen as a DGU only if there is no question at the time of the initial investigation by police that the shooting is justified. By contrast police shooting homicides tend to be reported as justified unless an initial investigation has significant evidence to the contrary.

The count of DGU homicides reported in the FBI UCR are these first blush police results (the FBI never goes back to revise the initial reports) resulting in an under count of civilian DGUs and an over count of police justified shootings. Completely neglected in these initial reports are conclusions drawn after some time as a result of additional police/prosecutor investigations or after trials.

We get some idea of the scope of this under-reporting from Time magazine which published the article "7 Deadly Days" July 17, 1989. That article reported 199 murders (charges since trials had not yet been held) and 14 civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) or 6.6% of gun homicides for the week of 1-7 May. A year later, Time followed-up their report with the article "Death by Gun: One Year Later", May 14, 1990, to see how the courts had handled the cases. They reported that there were now 28 CLDHs (13.1% of gun homicides), an increase of 100% on the original report with at least 43 cases not yet adjudicated by the one-year later follow-up.

I've not seen this Kleck quote before. Previous quotes that I've seen from him estimate the number of DGUs by civilians as 7%-14% of homicides reported by the FBI. I would guess that the actual meaning of this quote is from the FBI we get the first blush DGUs by civilians which amount to around 3% of homicides, but after a complete investigation and trials, this FBI reported number amounts to about 1/3 of all DGUs. That observation is supported by the Time Magazine articles mentioned above.

 

[JWarren]

As I see it, the operative word here is JUSTIFIABLE. That means it has been determined by those in a position to make that evaluation that the actions were within the bounds of self-defense and without a doubt a fuction of some criminal activity directed TOWARDS the shooter.

This isn't evidence of a trigger-happy trend among law-abiding citizens. This IS evidence of a changing nature of the criminal element. More and more violent actions of criminals has caused the law-abiding public to realize that simply cooperating will NOT likely increase your odds of surviving.

I remind us all again that we are talking about JUSTIFIABLE self-defense (I'll not use the term homicide here-- I've no interest in making an undeserved perceptual connection).

I think that this post by foghornl is very insightful:

Just my humble opinion & observations:

1. The Criminal Element mindset has shifted from "take the money/stuff & run" to "Leave NO Breathing Witnesses Behind".

2. The long-time message of 'just give them what they want, and they'll go away without hurting you' is being proven every day to be wrong.

3. Three Strikes laws make repeat offenders want to escape the scene of the crime at ALL costs, no matter if that cost is the life of 'Johnny Law' or Jon & Jan Q. Private-Citizen. (review item 1 again)

Criminals are changing. Its as simple as that. Things that were once "heinous" crimes are run-of-the-mill now. I am not saying that this is the majority, but they occur with astonishing regularity and enough to realize that heinous crimes are not all that infrequent.

We've responded to that by choosing not the be raped, tortured, and killed.


-- John