In a previous essay, I mentioned that we do not know what proportion of unsolved homicides are justified homicides. The reason is that most homicides are violent criminals killing other violent criminals, and that because a person is a criminal, they are reluctant to report a self defense shooting to police. From the previous essay:
In the United States, about 37.5% of the homicides are unsolved. In Chicago in 2013, the number was 75% unsolved. Most homicides involve criminals killing other criminals. How many of those would be justifiable if solved is unknowable; but clearly some are. It is not hard to believe that someone with a criminal record would just walk away from a justifiable killing, if he feared prosecution for gun possession, or simply did not trust the police. Those are unknown percentages, but if the number is close to the percentages in solved homicides, then Klecks estimate of justifiable homicides increases by 60%. Instead of 3-7 times the FBI numbers, we get 5 – 11 times the the FBI reported figures, for 2012 clearance rates.There were 310 justifiable homicides recorded by the FBI UCR in 2012. So the actual number of justified homicides is likely between 1,500 and 3,000. As many as 40% of those are unsolved homicides.
What do you think about these numbers, TS?
but if the number is close to the percentages in solved homicides…
ReplyDeleteI don’t think you can count the justifiable homicide percentage directly for the unsolved ones, though they make a good case for it being significant. It’s probably not “close”. Reality is probably somewhere between the UCR number and their low estimate.
You can't count ANY justifiable homicides, TS. Just like you can't count DGUs. Both statistics contain some false-positives.
DeleteAnd whenever someone uses Kleck as a guideline, you can be sure it's bullshit.
Huh? Are you saying the presence of false positives means you have to throw away the whole count? There are false positive murders too, Mike, so I guess we can't count ANY murders.
DeleteI didn't mean that. I guess I should have said you can't count ALL justified homicides.
DeleteThe author makes several huge leaps of logic.
ReplyDeleteFirst, most criminals who carry guns do so for the purpose of self-defense. They are defending themselves from other criminals who victimize them. That said, a drug dealer shooting another drug dealer who was trying to kill him is not a justifiable homicide. You may call it an illegal self-defense but it isn't a justifiable homicide.
Second, while many homicides are unsolved, the circumstances surrounding them are not. A driveby shooting can't be a justifiable homicide nor could a robbery attempt gone bad. Merely claiming "but clearly some are" is broad jump away from reality.
Third, the author might have a small point if he show evidence that some percentage of unsolved homicides turned out to be justifiable homicides. But he can't.
Jade: "First, most criminals who carry guns do so for the purpose of self-defense. They are defending themselves from other criminals who victimize them."
DeleteUh, yeah. That was the author's point.
Missing the point again, TS. The clueless author is attempting to conflate self-defenses--that are illegal and criminal in nature--with justifiable homicides.
DeleteNo, I'm not missing the point. The weird thing is, neither are you. You keep repeating what the author said- that there is a faction of criminals engaged in "illegal" acts of self-defense that are not counted by the FBI as justifiable homicides. Man, it's like you feel you need to argue just for the sake of arguing.
Delete