Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

Really interesting piece.

[Statistical]

1. He did the right thing.

Police shoot the wrong person 11x more often than citizens carrying concealed.

Thank God no cop arrived on teh scene.

[rfranklin]

4. That sounds like a bogus statistic...

Perhaps cops are in situations that require weapons (it is their job after all) about 100 times more than gun-toptin' citizens?

[Statistical]

8. Doesn't change the fact that you are far more likely to be killed by a cop than by a CCW

due to mistaken identity.

[DrDan]

9. do you really think that statistic is meaningful in any way

[Statistical]

12. Yeah.

Nobody is calling for cops to be disarmed. You are far more likely to be killed by a cop accidentally than by a CCWer.

[DrDan]

15. well then - let's include those in the military involved in combat operations

we can probably make the statistics even more skewed

[Statistical]

19. Civilians (in self defense) kill roughly 3x as many criminals as Police do.

Cops kill 11x as many people due to mistaken identity as civilians do.

Even on a % basis cops are 5x as bad.
11% of the targets of police gunfire as mistakenly identified.
Only 2% of targets of civilian self defense are mistakenly identified.


http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

So in Summary:
a) Civilians use firearms more often than cops.
b) Civilians wound & kill more criminals than cops.
c) Civilians are 5x less likely to shoot the wrong person.
d) CCW are highly law abiding. In FL for example less than 0.18% of permits have been revoked due to criminal activity.

Yet you trust cops with guns but want to disable law abiding citizens. That makes sense!

[DrDan]

20. given a choice between being defended by a cop or a macho-civilian, I know

which I would choose

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

36. let's not make it personal

[shadowrider]

25. See which one is closer when you really, REALLY need them NOW n/t

[slackmaster]

2. "nearly shot" == "didn't shoot"

Saying someone almost shot someone is like saying someone is almost pregnant.

The guy did exactly the right thing.

[shadowrider]

26. Agreed

He didn't "nearly shoot" anyone. He never drew his weapon, never pointed it, never showed it.

[Lucian]

3. This is why it's stupid for anyone to conceal and carry.

They could be confused as a killer if they take out their gun and shoot. So what's the point of conceal and carry then?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

10. there ya go . . .

[X_Digger]

7. Incidents like these?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/16/ap/national/main7157952.shtml

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top_stories/628167/man-at-atm-fires-back-at-would-be-armed-robber

According to police, the man was attempting to use a Cash Points ATM on Eastway Drive at North Tryon Street around 11 p.m. A suspect seemingly saw that as an opportunity and tried to rob the victim at gunpoint.

However, that victim was also armed. He shot the suspect twice in the leg.

http://www.wxix.com/Global/story.asp?S=12299813

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) - Cincinnati Police are investigating a shooting where it appears a robber left the scene with the victim's cell-phone in his hand, and a slug from the victim's gun in his lower abdomen.

Police say the robber ran into someone with a concealed-carry permit, and at some point the would-be victim was able to get his gun out and shoot the suspect, who took off running from the shooting scene on Rosemont Avenue south of Glenway in West Price Hill.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

28. I answered your question, insult aside. n/t

[Statistical]

11. Most situations are far more simple.

Walking to car from Walmart, perp shows a knife and "asks" for wallet.
Draw and fire. No question of identity.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

13. Because something bad might almost happen?

:crazy:

[Lucian]

21. No.

What's :crazy: are idiots walking around with concealed weapons thinking their life is in danger when it's not.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

40. Te chances are good that a person will never need to use his/her concealed weapon ...

but there are no guarantees.

Much depends on where you live and your lifestyle. You may be a stay at home computer addict and only go to the grocery store to get munchies. Other people may live and work in dangerous areas.

Fortunately you do not make the law.

[SteveM]

54. And you know this, how? nt

[spin]

37. Not all self defense incidents occur in a crowd ..

Many, for example, occur in parking lots. It's just you and the bad guy who plans to kill or seriously hurt you.

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Often predicted, but facts do not support the claim

Turns out the guy responding to sounds of gunfire had his hand on his weapon (still concealed), but not drawn drawn. He held his fire. In the face of an ambiguous situation, he didn't shoot.

Is not that exactly what we hope responsible, legally armed individuals will do, law enforcement or civilian? Do not we expect the to:
Hold their fire when they are not sure what is going on or who is the "bad guy"?
Hold their fire if the bad guy has been restrained or no longer poses a threat justifying lethal force?

The purpose for individual concealed carry is not as some kind of auxiliary police. In most states the burden to justify lethal force defending another is much higher than for self defense. For example, here are the relevant sections from the Kentucky Revised Statutes.

503.070 Protection of another.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person; and
(b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.503.070 Protection of another.

It is completely disingenuous to argue on one hand that concealed carry holders will go charging into situations blasting merrily at each other then in the next breath condemn concealed carry holders for not intervening in this case.


There's not much data, but what little there is show that civilians are less likely to shoot the wrong person than cops.

Can Citizens Use Guns Competently?

Ordinary people, even if they have passed a firearms safety class, cannot be trusted to use guns competently, it is sometimes claimed. The guns will be taken away by criminals, or the gun-owners will shoot an innocent bystander by mistake, it is sometimes predicted. Wherever the concealed carry issue is raised in the future, it can be predicted with confidence that these objections will be raised by reform opponents, including many law enforcement professionals who claim expertise on the issue.

The existing body of research provides no support for these fears. The best evidence we have about what happens when people have carry permits is the experience of the 1/3 of American states that issue such permits routinely. From these states, the most detailed data are those compiled by the Dade County (Miami) police. As discussed above, the police kept track of every known incident involving the county's more than 21,000 handgun carry permitees over a six-year period. In that six-year period, there was one known incident of a crime victim having his gun taken away by the criminal. There were no known incidents of a crime victim injuring an innocent person by mistake. In some cases the handgun permit holder was successful in preventing a crime, and in some cases not, but in no case was any innocent person injured as a result of mistake by a permit-holder.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher.

In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

The most detailed information about civilian defensive gun use has been compiled by Professor Gary Kleck (a liberal Democrat, and member of the ACLU and Common Cause) in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. In 1992 the American Society of Criminology awarded the book the Hindelang Prize, as the most significant contribution to criminology in the previous three years. In Point Blank, Kleck studied computer tapes from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Survey, for the years 1979-85. Analyzing the data from over 180,000 crime incidents in the National Crime Survey, as well from other studies, Kleck found the following:

- In no more than 1% of defensive gun uses was the gun taken away by a criminal.
- The odds of a defensive gun user accidentally killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.
- For robbery and assault victims, the lowest injury rates (17.4% for robberies, and 12.1% for assaults) were among victims who resisted with a gun.
- The next lowest injury rates were among persons who did not resist. Other forms of resistance (such as shouting for help, or using a knife), had higher injury rates than either passive compliance or resistance with a gun.

[SteveM]

53. So, how many "confused as killer" shootings have you found? Please post. nt

[derby378]

5. This is the good judgement gun-control activists say we don't have

He made the right call. There are too many cops who can't say the same thing.

[slackmaster]

14. Yes, and they're desperately trying to spin it as support for their anti-CCW views

It's really pathetic, and the media machine playing right along.

[aikoaiko]

16. Gun carrier got involved and didn't shoot the wrong person with gun.

This is how it is supposed to go. Its almost like the author of this Slate piece is hoping for a tragedy.

[doc03]

17. If anything this makes a case for CCW. He proves CCW

people are not nut jobs out looking to kill someone. He didn't shoot anyone and was also level headed enough to know he could be mistaken for a second killer in that situation. The guy did everything right and is a hero in my book.

edit: (not) nut jobs

[RamboLiberal]

18. +1

[Old and In the Way]

29. I hope the entire Republican National Convention is CCW.

It should be, right?

Then lets see what happens if some prankster lights off some firecrackers. Win!

[shadowrider]

30. Over 7000 went to a gun show in Tucson the other day

How many shots went off? How many people were killed?

Oh, none? You mean all those mean, evil nasty guns, and nobody got shot?

[safeinOhio]

32. Most gun shows

so not allow loaded guns in the show.

[shadowrider]

33. I see. So magazines and ammo aren't for sale. Whew!!! n/t

[Straw Man]

41. Win?

I hope the entire Republican National Convention is CCW.

It should be, right?

Then lets see what happens if some prankster lights off some firecrackers. Win!

Let's see... You are hoping for a tragic incident in which people are shot. It will be OK with you because they are Republicans. Does that about sum it up?

[Old and In the Way]

42. Sounds ghoulish, right?

But we really need to see how this CCW experiment works in a controlled environment where everyone is packing. Since Republicans love their guns and 2nd Amendment rights so much and they are pushing their NRA gun rights agenda into our society at an unprecedented clip, maybe they need to witness what places like Virginia Tech and Tucson have experienced, 1st hand.

[shadowrider]

43. Yup, you really, REALLY want another massacre. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. NRA Conventions (aside from the most recent) generally allow concealed carry...

I don't see people being shot at annual NRA conventions shooting each other up. :shrug:
I would be very surprised if fewer than 30% of the people at an NRA annual convention are packing.

[Straw Man]

46. Yup.

Sounds ghoulish, right?

Yes, it does. Enough said.

[RSillsbee]

47. We've been watching this CCW "experiment"

Since 1986 (I think) in America in general and we still don't have permit holders shooting it out over parking spots or blood in the streets. Is there something else you're looking for?

[shadowrider]

48. He wants Republicans to all pack and have a wide open shootout

That's something he'd cheer for and probably have put on pay-per-view. (As long as it's evil Republicans killing each other).

It sickens me someone could suggest this, of either party, and take joy in anticipation of the event.

[one-eyed fat man]

49. He does kinda give lie to nonviolent leftist meme. n/t

[PavePusher]

52. Neither of which, as you well know...

were examples of legal CC.

But feel free to continue your conflations.

[SteveM]

55. Finger-licking good, ay?

[GSLevel9]

31. well oh my gosh, just ban all the guns then!!! Be good sheeple!! nt

[DonP]

34. Based on that "logic" - I nearly ran over an old lady

I was going to turn right at the corner on the way to work today, but I saw an old lady crossing the street and went straight instead.

So even though I didn't do it and made the right choice, I guess I nearly ran her over and maybe I need to lose my license for what I nearly did?

Makes sense to some folks I guess.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. It's the Newspeak about CCW holders. That, and "they don't stop crimes".

A good ctizen will, of course, ignore the years of claims that there'll be blood in the streets.

That's Oldspeak-or as the late Ron Ziegler used to say about Richard Nixon's statements, "inoperative".

[SteveM]

56. Right of up there with that steamer: "More guns = more crime." nt

[john donathon]

35. yea your right

maybe it would have been a better outcome, if that guy just laid down on the ground and didn't do anything right?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. He kept his weapon HOLSTERED/CONCEALED because he was unsure about the target...

He kept his weapon HOLSTERED/CONCEALED because he was unsure about the target and did not want to add to the confusion. This shows proper self-restraint and decision-making under duress. He did not whip out is gun and unsafely point it at an incorrect target.

This flies in the face of every anti-CCW-zealot who predicts CCW people will start erroniously shooting at each other in a crowd situation. THE PRECISE scenario played out... and CCW shooters DID WHAT THEY WERE TRAINED TO DO - "Be sure of your target." GOOD!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Euromutt]

50. From a detached standpoint, you have to admire the mental gymnastics

I mean, it takes some really serious capability for doublethink to claim that your predictions were vindicated even though those predictions failed to come true. As usual.

It's been asserted, over and over, that having private citizens carrying in this sort of situation will not only do no good, but that it will actively cause additional harm, because they'll shoot the wrong guy, or be mistaken by police for one of the shooters, bla bla fishcakes. But even though "Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot," he made the correct decision, namely not to; moreover, he didn't even draw his weapon lest he be mistaken for one of the shooters. Thus, he managed to avoid fulfilling the predictions that opponents of carrying by private citizens have made over and over for so many years.

In a very real sense, the reason Zamudio came close "to killing an innocent man" at all was because it was a "dynamic critical incident," with a lot of confusion and the need to make crucial decisions very quickly. Arguably, given that Zamudio was in that situation with a firearm to begin with, there was no way he could have been less close. But as it turns out, "close" was far enough.

[jeepnstein]

51. He didn't shoot.

Zamudio did exactly the right thing. Luck probably has very little to do with it. He might not even know why he processed the information correctly. Given that he didn't even draw his weapon he was obviously not going "cowboy" on anyone.

But let's ignore that and instead launch into some hysteria about the thing that almost happened but didn't because some mere citizen made good decisions.