Cases of Firearm Use

[Carter Brink]

Hello everyone

I saw this piece in the news:

https://www.iol.co.za/news/traffic/m...d-4b348b3f7f9f

It got me thinking. Is anyone actually getting away with using a firearm in defense?

Who is keeping track of this data?

It's extremely important. For example, if most people who claim defense are not getting away with using their firearms, then the public and gun owners should be alerted to the fact that there is a greater than 50% chance of jail if they act in defense. (I'm not referring to the court's opinion of what is valid defense, I'm referring to the gun owner's belief that his life is in danger at the exact moment he decides to act)

Every person who uses a firearm in defense, wholeheartedly believes and is convinced that they did so correctly. What makes you, the reader, convinced that your case will be different to all the other cases? You could be the next victim, convinced that you acted correctly?

If the police and the courts are not recognising most of these cases as valid, people need to know that they will most likely end up in jail if they believe that they had a valid reason to use it. Statistical probability.

Are there any recent cases out there of people actually getting away with it, and what were the specific circumstances?

At least, if we can point to an individual case with specific circumstances, where someone got away with it, it could provide a little help?

[Bundu Ric]

Maybe a few questions,

So you think if you car is being pelted with rocks you are within you right to shoot someone?

Where does your 50% stats comes from as nowhere in the article did I see that?

You also do know that there is always a case opened, the police officer on scene can not decide if it was justified or not.

[Carter Brink]

The 50 percent stat is an example.

I made that example because I've personally never met or spoken to anyone who has successfully gotten away with using one. This is a serious red flag to me.

The victim believed it was his only option. That's the problem. "Reasonable behavior" must be the reasonable behavior of most victims in that situation in order to be considered reasonable.

[Wild coast]

Tried by twelve. Carried by six.

The first option for me.

[oafpatroll]

I work on the assumption that I will be treated unfairly, inequitably and maybe even illegally by 'law enforcement' in the event of me shooting someone. As per Bundu Ric I also know that I will be automatically charged with murder or attempted murder and that I will incur substantial expense even if everything goes my way. For those reasons I do whatever is within my power to avoid places and situations where shooting someone may become necessary. Happily, now that I'm older and fartier that's become very much easier than when I was younger and more excitable.

Something else to consider is that the 'witnesses' to a shooting event may or may not have seen it or even been there. Two people I know had very damaging witness statements made about shootings they were involved in by people who had not even been within sight of the events.

[Carter Brink]

I work on the assumption that I will be treated unfairly, inequitably and maybe even illegally by 'law enforcement' in the event of me shooting someone. As per Bundu Ric I also know that I will be automatically charged with murder or attempted murder and that I will incur substantial expense even if everything goes my way. For those reasons I do whatever is within my power to avoid places and situations where shooting someone may become necessary. Happily, now that I'm older and fartier that's become very much easier than when I was younger and more excitable.

Something else to consider is that the 'witnesses' to a shooting event may or may not have seen it or even been there. Two people I know had very damaging witness statements made about shootings they were involved in by people who had not even been within sight of the events.

Thanks for the input.

I think this needs to be approached from a statistical, basic maths perspective. If your odds of winning such a case are around 20 percent or lower (example), then is it even worth carrying in first place?

[Luker]

Hello everyone

I saw this piece in the news:

https://www.iol.co.za/news/traffic/m...d-4b348b3f7f9f

It got me thinking. Is anyone actually getting away with using a firearm in defense?

Who is keeping track of this data?

It's extremely important. For example, if most people who claim defense are not getting away with using their firearms, then the public and gun owners should be alerted to the fact that there is a greater than 50% chance of jail if they act in defense. (I'm not referring to the court's opinion of what is valid defense, I'm referring to the gun owner's belief that his life is in danger at the exact moment he decides to act)

Every person who uses a firearm in defense, wholeheartedly believes and is convinced that they did so correctly. What makes you, the reader, convinced that your case will be different to all the other cases? You could be the next victim, convinced that you acted correctly?

If the police and the courts are not recognising most of these cases as valid, people need to know that they will most likely end up in jail if they believe that they had a valid reason to use it. Statistical probability.

Are there any recent cases out there of people actually getting away with it, and what were the specific circumstances?

At least, if we can point to an individual case with specific circumstances, where someone got away with it, it could provide a little help?

" Getting away with it" is the wrong terminology. Justified / vindicated is the correct terminology.

[Skaaphaas]

The 50 percent stat is an example.

I made that example because I've personally never met or spoken to anyone who has successfully gotten away with using one. This is a serious red flag to me.

The victim believed it was his only option. That's the problem. "Reasonable behavior" must be the reasonable behavior of most victims in that situation in order to be considered reasonable.

You’ll find more than a few cases right here on GS of defensive gun-use examples, where the person was either not charged, or if charged, acquitted. In far, far more than 50% of the cases.

Of course there will be law-enforcement involvement after you killed someone with a firearm.

And “reasonable person” is a test for negligence, and for negligence only. If you’re charged with murder, this doesn’t even form part of the equation unless culpable homicide is considered.

A docket being opened for murder, culpable homicide is really only so the investigating officer has a place to put the statements in. Whatever is written on the front isn’t worth much until a charge sheet is written up.

[wave.jaco]

Very valid question as I think this question wanders in the minds of many persons that EDC. Following this with interest.

[SSP]

The 50 percent stat is an example.

I made that example because I've personally never met or spoken to anyone who has successfully gotten away with using one. This is a serious red flag to me.

Have you spoken to anyone who hasn't "gotten away" with using a firearm in self defence?