Deputy DC Mayor gets MUGGED!

[applesanity]

Yeah, but a liberal politician who's been mugged buys guns for himself while denying the People that very right.

Or, in the case of Feinstein (who has a CCW in Cali, no less!) et. al., we must remember that they aren't really hypocrites. They need to protect their own lives, so that they can serve the People - who apparently don't matter as much.

 

[BillCA]

The fact that people on this forum use this mugging as evidence that citizens need more guns for protection is pretty solid evidence that people make knee jerk responses without thinking it through.

True to a point. But we have to remember that guns are prohibited in government buildings even with a permit, so our intrepid deputy Mayor would be in violation of law or he would be unarmed (excluding the idea of special privlieges and/or gun lockers at city hall).

As someone pointed out, a passerby with a gun could have made a significant difference. Even someone in a nearby residence or office might have been able to disrupt the crime. Mr. Deputy Mayor is lucky that the thugs he encountered didn't harm him as many victims are abused or killed after a robbery.

 

[Justme]

Right, a well meaning CCW bystanding brandishes weapon and says stop, BG shoots victim and then takes aim on bystander, depending on bystanders experience either BG or bystander is dead.

So instead of recovered loot and a shaken up politician we have a dead politician and a dead BG(or possibly a dead bystander).

 

[Duxman]

So instead of recovered loot and a shaken up politician we have a dead politician and a dead BG(or possibly a dead bystander).

Hmmm since we are throwing out what ifs:

Lets say mugger decided what he stole from Deputy Mayor is not enough: He shoots Deputy Mayor DEAD. End of scenario.

If CCW was allowed: BG threatens Deputy Mayor (not pulling gun out of pocket - notoriously inaccurate) - Deputy Mayor with CCW sidesteps to avoid being shot and kills BG dead. Better ending.

Because the mainstream media does not write about the successful CCW encounters with the BGs - we never hear about it. Also statistics have shown that COOPERATING with BGs IS NOT the safest way to surviving an encounter. They show that RESISTING BGs is the safest way to go.

Here is some food for thought:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html

Over 1.2M crimes in the US stopped by a firearm.

 

[Justme]

Also statistics have shown that COOPERATING with BGs IS NOT the safest way to surviving an encounter. They show that RESISTING BGs is the safest way to go

Since in this case we already know what happened with no CCW, and it was a sort of best case scenario, those statistics would not apply now would they?

The fact is, nobody got hurt. How on Gods green earth do you spin that scenario so that it looks like it would have been better if more guns were involved?

BTW, as a quality control engineer at one point in my life I find statistics and their use fascinating. Do you have a link that supports the position that resisting an armed BG is better than co-operating? I have always thought that giving an armed guy the "money", or whatever, was the smart move. The police videos seem to support this concept, but I'm open to knew ideas.

 

[Duxman]

Always happy to educate a fellow TFL'er

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Spinning this incident:

1) You dont know that this incident is over:

2) The criminal now has your address and could begin credit card fraud processes against you.

3) The said criminal who knows where you live (Drivers license) - can now break into your home and start stealing your stuff, attack your family and do lots of other bad things.

4) The money from this mugging maybe used towards feeding a drug habit, or because of a SUCCESSFUL crime attempt BG may not escalate criminal activities - rape, murder etc.

5) BG may now have money for bullets or a real gun which he will use on his next victim.

Aside from the deputy mayor NOT getting killed or maimed, I dont see anything good coming from this crime. If deputy mayor had TRAINING and a CCW - he could have been ready for criminal and stopped BG.

 

[Justme]

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

That is an interesting point. Only 25% of defensive use of firearms happened away from a persons home. I wonder if this number will change now that we have more states with CCW.

The fact that 80% of the defenses were by concealable handguns is moot and misleading since they don't mention how many of them were actually concealed. The fact that the guns were blued vs stainless would have been as relevant.

Nowhere on that list of stats does it say or imply that resisting is more effective than co-operating. I have seen stats of that nature to do with rape. Your odds of being harmed during a rape is actually lower if you resist rather than co-operate, unless a weapon is involved in which case it is better to co-operate.

Nice stats, but not really applicable.

 

[Justme]

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

An interesting statistic, since the only legal justification for using lethal force is a belief that you or your loved ones lives are in danger. So around 70% of people brandished their weapon even though by their own judgement someone was not certain or probably going to die? I'm really not sure what to make of this stat. It does imply that people are pretty quick to use a gun even when they don't feel their life is in danger.

 

[Duxman]

As to how one can protect oneself from assailants when the police, as more often than not, are not around, National Victims Data suggests that "while victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit, victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who put up no defense."

http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage5.html

See statistics above. There is some basic research you can do to find this stuff as well. There are probably more knowledgeable board members that can help.

 

[Justme]

I would not dispute the idea that a person in his home who is resisting home invasion is less likely to be injured by the attackers, that's the conclusion you can draw from your previous stats and this more recent one. However you said:

They show that RESISTING BGs is the safest way to go.

That is actually wrong, as you yourself mentioned. Using a gun to resist may be the safest way to go, but, and here is where it gets tricky, you would actually have to use the gun for resisting not just have it present.

Depending on the attacker there is a pretty good chance that even if you were CCW you would never get a chance to use your weapon for resisting.

Jumping sideways while the BG misses and you smootly draw your weapon just doesn't happen in real life. If so cops would have a really tricky time arresting armed suspects, since they would just step to the side and return fire.

 

[Duxman]

That is actually wrong, as you yourself mentioned. Using a gun to resist may be the safest way to go, but, and here is where it gets tricky, you would actually have to use the gun for resisting not just have it present.

Depending on the attacker there is a pretty good chance that even if you were CCW you would never get a chance to use your weapon for resisting.

Your first statement makes no sense. I have never mentioned in any of my statements that Active Resistance to BGs is wrong.

What is wrong with using the gun on BGs when your life is threatened? I fail to see your point here. If someone is coming at me in a life threatening manner I will do everything I can NOT to be killed.

Back up your second statement with statistics please. Or is this just conjecture on your part.

We obviously will never see eye to eye on things - as you prefer your fate dictated to you by the kindess of robbers and muggers, while I prefer another route - training and CCW. Good luck to you sir.

 

[BillCA]

Justme,

That is actually wrong, as you yourself mentioned. Using a gun to resist may be the safest way to go, but, and here is where it gets tricky, you would actually have to use the gun for resisting not just have it present.

Resisting with a firearm is statistically the most successful method of resistance where you stand the least chance of getting hurt.

Resisting with other weapons or bare hands is something of a toss-up when it comes to being injured. However, as I recall from an NIJ survey (which I don't have the time or inclination to search for at the moment) resistance of any kind stands a better than even chance of thwarting the crime (if I recall, it was about 56% to 58%).

With regard to your statement:

Depending on the attacker there is a pretty good chance that even if you were CCW you would never get a chance to use your weapon for resisting

This is not so true. Force Science News has shown that a suspect can draw and fire his weapon before an officer can react, even with his weapon on the suspect. The myth that you can shoot someone before they can draw and fire from concealment does not stand up to close scrutiny. And these "shooters" were not highly-trained pistoleros but average young males.

 

[Wildalaska]

Well I love science but if someone has the drop on me, Im not drawing

WildinmostcasesAlaska

 

[Justme]

Bill some of what you say defies logic. The fastest draw in the world is still slower than having the weapon in your hand already.

Given the choice between having a gun in a holster and having a gun in my hand, I'm picking the hand every time.

a suspect can draw and fire his weapon before an officer can react, even with his weapon on the suspect.

Do you believe this? If this were true then shouldn't the cop keep his weapon in his holster and let the suspect draw and aim his weapon first, thus giving the cop an advantage? I wonder how many police academies teach cops that just because someone gets the drop on you is no reason not to attempt to draw and fire.

 

[crowbeaner]

A few years ago a losing politician shot and killed his elected rival in the Manhattan city bldg. and was himself shot and killed by an off duty policeman. Everyone knows that firearms are prohibited in municipal bldgs. so why did this happen? The losing politico just walked in and fired, so how did he get his weapon in? The end result is 2 dead democrats and one traumatized. I thought Sens. Shumer and Clinton had their people in line, especially in New York Shi@@y.Who says that gun control doesn't work? Two less to worry about getting to Washington and sneaking asinine legislation through on a voice vote like McCarthy's piece-de-resistance.

 

[Duxman]

a suspect can draw and fire his weapon before an officer can react, even with his weapon on the suspect.

I believe this has to do with training - if the officer involved was in shock (battle field shock) or could not believe that the suspect was drawing on him, then it might take a second or two for the command from his brain to go to his finger. Or perhaps he / she does not have the will to take out the BG.

If it was a battle hardened special forces commando - there would be no question - if you try to draw you are dead.

There's nothing illogical about it.

Besides I have gone to a local firing range where a bunch of punks shot at a target not 10 feet away, and missed every shot. Didn't even get on paper. I like my chances.

I'm with Bill on this one.

 

[redblair]

It's very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to say what would or would not have happened had the victim been carrying. So many variables including multiple assailants.

I spoke with a LEO recently who was mugged, at gun point, while off duty. He was carrying but with his wife beside him and a gun drawn on him he felt safest giving up his wallet and her purse and letting the BG walk away. He's quite competent with a gun and practices regularly. Just choose the safest route this time.

Something to think about.

B

 

[Al Norris]

For the life of me, I don't know why this is controversial.

Action beats reaction every time. This is a fact.

In the instant case before us, it is unknown whether or not having a gun would have done any good. Like others, there are way too many variables for any arm chair commandos to call.

What I do know is that there are way too many cases of the perp simply shooting the victim after the victim complies.

What I do know, is that in many filmed cases, the victim (usually a store clerk) has reached for a gun and shot the perp, while the perp has a gun trained on the victim.

It's a crap-shoot if you are involved in an armed robbery, whether or not you will survive. Ya rolls the dice and takes your chances, however it may turn out. In this, there is no right or wrong. The sole object is to survive the encounter, however you do it.

 

[BillCA]

Justme,

Bill some of what you say defies logic. The fastest draw in the world is still slower than having the weapon in your hand already.

Given the choice between having a gun in a holster and having a gun in my hand, I'm picking the hand every time.

Six months ago, I'd have agreed with you. But science says differently. And yes, I was shocked too!

Antipas hit the nail on the head...

To react, you have to recognize the movement, decide if it's a threat and then respond to it, meaning you're already behind the use-of-force curve.

Force Science News is full of interesting reading.

He [Avery]cited one small female who produced a gun from behind her leg and delivered 3 head shots from 3 yards in less than 1.5 seconds. "And she had never held a gun before," Avery said.

"These findings," Lewinski said, "are certain to have significant impact on officer-survival training
Force Science News

Dr. Lewinski, in an article published in Police Marksman, November 2000, revealed that the time required to perform certain motions is much faster than previously realized.

First, let's quantify how fast we can shoot. In this test, the gun is drawn and on target. The shooter has his finger on the trigger and psychologically ready to fire. On average, our shooter is able to "react" to a shot timer and pull the trigger of his weapon in about ¼ second. This is very important since it quantifies the time required to recognize some stimuli (an audible shot timer), process the information in the brain, squeeze the trigger and complete the shot. While a quarter of a second (0.25 seconds) does not seem like a lot of time, we'll show you why it's not as brief as you might think.

In another motion/time study, subjects were requested to place the weapon in their waistband and then, on their own initiative, pull & fire in a very "combat tuck" maneuver. This is a definite skill maneuver and would get faster with practice, but the subjects were not allowed to practice. The average time from start of the motion to weapon discharge was 23/100ths of a section (0.23). The fastest time was 09/100ths of a second! This means that if the subject has a gun in his waistband, the subject can draw and fire his weapon faster - up to three times faster - than the average person would be able to pull the trigger if he were already set to react to this movement.

In a gunpoint situation, especially with all the rules the "good guys" operate under, you have to decide shoot or no-shoot before squeezing the trigger. I.e. is that a cell phone in his hand or a gun? Is he dumping drugs or going for a weapon? Precious little time is available to figure all this stuff out.

 

[Justme]

Well, I could see showing rookie cops a video that shows how fast people can react. The fact is too many people assume that presenting a loaded weapon means the end of the conflict. Many gun owners invest just as much mysticism into firearms as do those who want to ban them.

It's the classic case of "if the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail". This whole thread is an example of that flawed thinking. This particular mugging could not have turned out better for the victim, and could have been much worse.

Guns are not some magical anti-crime talisman, and the sooner people realise that the better. Guns are very good at killing and wounding people, that is what they are designed to do. Nothing more, nothing less.