Burglary in progress call, homeowner with shotgun shot 17 times

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html#T145

I need to learn to search better, I had better cites when I first looked for this statistic, but I didn't book mark them.

 

[kparker]

imported post

Interesting study, SVG, but I don't think it really addresses the question about police vs non-police marksmanship. Rather it's about the fact that when victim engages in self-defense, there's hardly ever any ambiguity about who's the bad guy, whereas police arriving on the scene have to sort it out.

As your cited reference says:

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes...In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.
​

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

kparker wrote:

Interesting study, SVG, but I don't think it really addresses the question about police vs non-police marksmanship. Rather it's about the fact that when victim engages in self-defense, there's hardly ever any ambiguity about who's the bad guy, whereas police arriving on the scene have to sort it out.

As your cited reference says:

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes...In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.
​

That is a good point. The sorting out thing. But sad too that there are many cases of Police shooting the wrong people. There are many cites on this I can't find the main one I read several months ago. So I chose the one that I thought would be the least "pro-gun" in fairness.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Has many links. But sometimes they are hard to trace.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Dr. Fresh wrote:

SNIP  Why do people insist on making a huge deal out of how many rounds were fired?

Because the misses can hit innocent people.  What is applied to the citizen is only fair to apply to cops--if you launch it, you own it.

What is the other little saying?  Every bullet you fire has a lawsuit attached to it?

I recall just a few years ago a story in the news here in northern VA.  BATFE goons in a Suburban bumped into another car while traveling on a busy interstate.  (According to the story, the citizen was at fault.  And you can guess the source on that information.)  The citizen and BATmen pulled over.  The citizen allegedly opened fire on the BATmen.  The BATmen returned fire.  The BATmen missed every shot.  Every shot went somewhere besides its target along a busy interstate highway in high-density, traffic congested, Northern Virginia!!! 

Can you find a news report of this incident?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Dr. Fresh wrote:

SNIP Why do people insist on making a huge deal out of how many rounds were fired?

Because the misses can hit innocent people. What is applied to the citizenis only fair to apply tocops--if you launch it, you own it.

What is the other little saying? Everybullet you fire has a lawsuit attached to it?

I recall just a few years ago a story in the news here in northern VA. BATFE goons in a Suburban bumpedinto another car while traveling on a busy interstate. (According to the story, the citizen was at fault. And you can guess the source on that information.) Thecitizen andBATmenpulled over. Thecitizenallegedly opened fire on the BATmen. The BATmen returned fire.The BATmen missed every shot. Every shot went somewhere besides its target along a busy interstate highway in high-density, traffic congested, Northern Virginia!!!

Can you find a news report of this incident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070600009.html

 

[erps]

imported post

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

They are not trained.  Most police officers (patrol) put in 500 rounds a year.

I don't know about your state, but in mine, Statewide "MCOLES" certification only requires 18 rounds to be fired, and two hit paper (Note - not hit within a range of the center of the target, but just hit the 18" by 24" piece of paper).

 

[Kildars]

imported post

This happened in Nov 2008?

 

[Lammo]

imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:

Anyone here have experience shooting at moving targets in the dark, while afraid and possibly being shot at? I'm guessing not many have done that. Why do people insist on making a huge deal out of how many rounds were fired?

As I'm sure others have or will point out, it's not the number of rounds fired it's the rounds fired to hits ratio. Whenever someone grouses about the raw number ofshots firedI always respondwith the storyofa case of officer assisted suicide that I attended. The decedent refused to stop approaching the deputy with a knife. The deputy, armed with a then new S&W 10mm,fired five times and hit five times - - 4 center of mass, one in the leg. The decendent fell forward. I always use that as one example of which I have on scene knowledge that you shoot until the threat stops and it's never like you see in the movies. So far, other than stress that is not accounted for in training, I don't have an answer for a 17 to 4 shot to hit ratio. I think I understand it, I just don't know how to explain it to the unwashed masses.