we know it dropped by what ever these two criminals would have contributed to said "statistics".
That may be true, but Glummer said:
a lot of frightened thugs
These two are dead. They can't be frightened any longer. It's hard to be frightened when you are dead. I can only assume that he was referring to other people who were contemplating burglary.
Thumper said;
Interesting thought, but the premise seems to fly in the face of Dr. Lott's work. He evidently believes that potential criminals do take into consideration the risks involved.
According to the FBI uniform crime report: In 2006, there were an estimated 2,183,746 burglary offenses—an increase of 1.3 percent when compared with 2005 data.
Also according to the FBI: Law enforcement reported 617 justifiable homicides in 2006. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 376 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 241 individuals.
There were somewhere around 2,183,746 burglaries last year, even if we were to lie and say that everyone of the 241 people justifiably killed by private citizens was killed in a burglary attempt (and we know that that isn't true, that many of those justifiable homicides were people defending themselves against armed robbery and other personal attacks), the chances of a burglar being killed by his victim are pretty darned low. the most dangerous part of a burglars job is probably driving to and from work.
Lott was trying to prove a theory and interviewed criminals in a prison setting. Criminals are different when they are incarcerated then they are when they are out on the street. Most burglaries aren't planned out, it's usually a crime of opportunity and most burglars are quite certain they will get away with their crime when they do it. They aren't always smart about it, last winter I tracked one in the snow from the house he burglarized to his back door.
I would say if they think about getting shot, they think about it in the same way you or I think about having a traffic accident when we get behind the wheel. We know it's a possibility, but we don't usually cancel our trip because we deem it too dangerous. I'm sure that many of the criminals who told Lott that they worried about running into an armed citizen didn't want a confrontation with any citizen, even an unarmed one. Which is why most burglaries occur in unoccupied structures.
Serious question for consideration, Jeff: Is it possible your views on this case are colored by your political concerns about how this will play in Illinois?
Nope, because in the part of Illinois I live in, they have never played political correctness games with self defense issues. The current states attorney where I live is a Blagojevich Democrat and toes the party line when it comes to supporting gun control, but he's declined to prosecute a couple self defense cases that I'm sure he could have gotten convictions on under Illinois law. The previous states attorney was also a Democrat, but was pro-gun and he didn't even refer the shooting of the two dirtbags stealing anhydrous to a grand jury. I'm not sure he'd have gotten by with that if one or both had died.
My views on the case are based on Bartholomew Roberts and Click,Click, doh's read because they are probably more familiar with Texas laws (Bart being a law student, and CCD being a peace officer) and how it's applied then any of the laymen who are posting in the thread. In a perfect world the law would be clearly written and it would mean what it says. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and the actual meaning of a law depends on a couple things:
1. Community standards. There are communities where possession and use of various recreational drugs is pretty much ignored. The laws are on the books, but you'd be hard pressed to find a police officer who would arrest someone for breaking them or a prosecutor who would prosecute if they did make arrests. The last time I was in Key West people openly smoked marijuana in the outdoor cafes and beer gardens. I have a friend who is a Florida officer who told me I'd observe that when I was down there.
There are also community standards in how self defense laws are enforced. I can point out several cases over the years where elderly people in Chicago have used handguns they couldn't legally possess to defend themselves with and no one was prosecuted. Like I said earlier, where I live they look at a persons home as being pretty inviolate. Illinois law doesn't require one to retreat before they use deadly force, not in the home or on the street, but it does require you to be able to articulate you were in fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another before you use deadly force. I hardly think fleeing from a burglary puts one in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, yet I can point again to the anhydrous theft, the business owner, and no he wasn't elderly, shot those two in the back. Yet no charges were filed, the case wasn't even taken to the grand jury to give the prosecutor some cover.
2. Interpretation form the courts. There are rulings made every day that may change the way a law is actually applied. If ClickClick, Doh says that he's seen people prosecuted and convicted regardless of how you or anyone else reads the statute, that's a clue to me, that the court doesn't read it the same way.
Jeff
