Common that justified Self-Defense shooters get into multiple shootings over time?

[Aim1]

Here’s two recent cases in Minnesota where shooters where justified in shootings and then years later got into second shootings that don’t appear to be justified.

Perhaps they are inherently trigger happy people or get a sense they are untouchable after their first shooting and make lapses in judgement in their second.

From the second story:

"Court documents show Trotter shot and wounded one of two men who tried to rob him in 2013. The two men were charged and convicted in the case. Trotter was not charged in that case.".










https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/04/18/vincent-trotter-second-degree-assault-charges-st-paul/

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/04/18/vincent-trotter-second-degree-assault-charges-st-paul/

 

[hso]

Anecdotes aren't DATA.

 

[boom boom]

Anecdotes aren't DATA.

Hso,
I frequently see this statement on threads and this is wrong from an analytic standpoint.

It is data, it is just that it is hard to generalize general behavior from an N of 2 or 1. Sometimes single event type data is all that we have and sometimes they can spur research into determining just what the situation is (inductive) or follow a deductive approach in devising and testing a hypothesis. On this issue, you are dealing with a rare event in the first place which is a civilian use of a firearm in a defensive shooting that is documented, then adding another rare event of the same civilian using a firearm. So, one test, as the OP proposed is whether or not these are coincidences or the events may be connected. While frequentivist type statistics may not be employed in such cases, probability, case study, and Bayesian analysis might be fruitful.

I remember that one guy lived after being struck by lightning seven times--turns out that that his situation was not random as he worked as a park ranger in an area known for thunderstorms. See https://infogalactic.com/info/Roy_Sullivan . Thus, each of those strikes is an anecdote, but drawn together, his work and his outdoor life led to a greater risk than normal.

In particular, even single cases can be useful to test strong claims of all or nothing where the existence of even 1 counter example can disprove the asserted claim.

 

[rust collector]

What we're addressing here is more hypothesis than data. The question seems to be whether or not there sufficient data to support the hypothesis.

Now if the hypothesis were that this poster seems to enjoy stirring things up, data might be more plentiful.

 

[Labguy47]

As a long time shooter, hunter, military veteran, who is never unarmed thanks to my states CCW and castle doctrine, I want to advise those who think that a gun is empowering could not be further from the truth. If you become entangled in one of these events you will be vilified by the media. You may be fired from your employment. And even if exonerated, you may be liable for civil wrongful death suits.
Taking a life is easy, living with yourself is the hard part.

 

[BigBore44]

A very good friend of mine (police officer) was involved in a fatal shooting about a month ago. It was his first in almost 16 years as an officer. Another officer from IA told him that officers who have been in one shooting and survived and didn’t quit the force, were more likely to be involved in a second, or more, shootings. Maybe it’s simple odds because of the profession. Maybe there’s just less personal resistance to pulling their firearm/trigger after the first time. Maybe there’s more to it.

I do know that two of the other officers involved in that shooting had been in more than one shooting. Someone with more resources than I have could research that.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One point to consider is that those who are forced to use a firearm in self defense are often people in occupations or neighborhoods that expose them to a lot of danger. I know a pawnbroker in Hot Springs, Arkansas, whose business has been robbed many times -- and he has shot several robbers.

 

[Browning]

If you become entangled in one of these events you will be vilified by the media. You may be fired from your employment. And even if exonerated, you may be liable for civil wrongful death suits.
Taking a life is easy, living with yourself is the hard part.

I think that's a little off.

It should be .... "Taking the life of someone who represents a threat to you or your family is easy. Living with people who think that burglars, armed robbers, rapists and predators are an endangered species to be protected at all costs and who are readily willing to punish your self reliance by misusing the courts is the hard part".

 

[Labguy47]

I think that's a little off.

It should be .... "Taking the life of someone who represents a threat to you or your family is easy. Living with people who think that burglars, armed robbers, rapists and predators are an endangered species to be protected at all costs and who are readily willing to punish your self reliance by misusing the courts is the hard part".

I would agree with that. I haven’t lost sleep over any bad guys dispatch yet.

 

[Deanimator]

Well, theoretically if you let somebody murder or maim you nobody else gets a chance to victimize you, and you never get another chance to defend yourself.

 

[Deanimator]

I would agree with that. I haven’t lost sleep over any bad guys dispatch yet.

I am every bit as disgusted by the enablers of robbers, rapists, murderers and jihadis as I am by the perpetrators themselves.

Not so long ago, we had a Somali "car and knife jihadi" at Ohio State. When he was shot by the police before he could murder anyone, an idiot admin employee at Ohio State bemoaned his demise, bleating irrelevantly "Black lives matter", as though he wouldn't have cheerfully killed a Black Christian or a Black Muslim who was the wrong KIND of Muslim.

 

[stillquietvoice]

I wouldn't be so sure. There have been cases here in NY where criminals have sued for being injured by home owners while committing crimes and won. The reason is they could no longer perform their occupation of being criminals.

Ladybug 47 is more correct than you know, myself having been criminalized and demonized in the media, not gotten security jobs or not hired as a result of an SD situation.
He is not wrong.

It is sad when the law abiding citizen becomes the criminal for doing nothing but protect thyself and family and the perpetrator becomes the victim. Because you fought back.