Connect with us

Guns

Home Invasion Statistics – Self Defense & Prevention

Published

on

A Closer Look At Home Invasion Statistics

Home Invasion Statistics and Prevention

Wanted in Arlington, Texas

Crime reports and recently compiled home invasion statistics offer proof for the need to take home invasion prevention seriously.

There’s rarely a day that goes by that Americans don’t find their local news talking about another home invasion or robbery, a rape or murder; unfortunately that’s the sad state of society now.

That doesn’t mean we have to live in fear or lock ourselves in a cage. What it means is that we have to use common sense home invasion prevention strategies.

For example, homes are much more secure with a wireless alarm system and deadbolt locks, as well as good outside lighting.

I also always encourage people to take self-defense courses and to consider getting a firearm and taking proper training on how to use it (a CCW course will do it).

The number of people who use a firearm in self-defense, every year, is something you’ll never hear on mainstream liberal media. But it happens a lot!

Read my article on “Do Guns Save Lives” for more on the self-defense use of guns, but the bottom line is that every year somewhere between 1/2 million to upwards of 3 million American citizens use a firearm in self-defense, compared to about 300,000 crimes in which the criminal used a firearm.

What Are Your Chances Of A Home Invasion

What Are Your Chances Of A Home Invasion?

Looking at the home invasion statistics your chances are relatively small of having a burglar break in to your home. But so are the chances that you’ll be in a car wreck, need emergency medical care, or have a house fire, but you plan and prepare for those anyway… that’s common sense.

And just like those other types of incidents, a home invasion can be costly, and even worse, deadly or result in serious injury.

I have a wireless alarm system in my home and I truthfully cannot imagine anyone not having one. With technology advancing so quickly, the costs are so low that it’s silly to go without a home security system.

Some home security statistics indicate that homes without security systems are up to 300% more likely to be broken into.

To find the home invasion statistics by state you can use the Uniform Crime Reporting Data Tool of the DOJ.

FBI Home Invasion Statistics

F.B.I. Home Invasion StatisticsWhile crime in general has been on the decline there’s still reason to take it serious and be aware, and take basic steps in burglary prevention.

To give you an idea of how likely you are to suffer a home invasion or other crime here are some FBI home invasion statistics.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines burglary as “The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft.” Most states have very similar wording for home invasions.

While it may not seem intuitive, entering a home in order to commit a rape, for instance, would also include the crime of burglary. People often think of burglary as only meaning that some items were stolen, when in fact you can have a burglary without anything at all being stolen.

FBI data from 2015 Crime Statistics on Burglary.

  1. In 2015, there were an estimated 1,579,527 burglaries, a decrease of 7.8 percent when compared with 2014 data. The number of burglaries decreased 27.7 percent when compared with 2011 data and was down 28.0 percent when compared with the 2006 estimate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
  2. The estimated number of burglaries accounted for 19.8 percent of the estimated number of property crimes. (Based on Table 1.)
  3. By subcategory, 57.9 percent of burglaries involved forcible entry, 35.5 percent were unlawful entries, and 6.6 percent were attempted forcible entry. (Based on Table 19.)
  4. Victims of burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.6 billion in property losses in 2015. The average dollar loss per burglary offense was $2,316. (Based on Tables 1 and 23.)
  5. Burglaries of residential properties accounted for 71.6 percent of all burglary offenses. (See Table 23.)

After having spent almost 2 decades in law enforcement three things are clear when it comes to home invasion prevention:

  1. Criminals don’t like lights (they want to hide), so keep your home well-lit outside.
  2. Criminal don’t want to make too much noise (a house alarm ruins their party).
  3. They don’t want to get hurt, and armed home owners are proven to deter criminals. I’m not talking about shooting them, of course that’s a deterrence. I mean the fact that a homeowner is armed can alone prevent many home invasions. A sign at the back door warning that you’re armed is a cheap deterrent in some cases. Though don’t go wild and have signs that say crazy things like “Intruders will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.” Unless of course you just want to go to prison for a wrongful death or excessive use of force incident.

Home Burglary Statistics – DOJ

Home Invasion Statistics AnalysisHow serious a threat are home invasions, statistically?

According to the Department of Justice, reviewing data from 2003 – 2007, there were an average of 3.7 million burglaries every year!

In addition:

  • A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
  • Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred.
  • Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
  • Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households that were violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
  • Households residing in single family units and higher density structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.
  • Damaging or removing a door was the most common type of entry in forcible and attempted forcible entry burglaries. Removing or damaging a window screen during a forcible entry was equally likely to occur whether the residence was occupied (11%) or unoccupied (9%).
  • In 40% of unlawful entries to unoccupied residences, offenders gained access through an unlocked door or window.

Some home burglary statistics are frightening, such as:

  • Households composed of single females with children had the highest rates of burglary while someone was present.
  • Victims in 38% of households burglarized while someone was home were asleep at the time of the burglary, while 44% of households stated that household members were engaged in other activities in the home when the offender gained entry to the residence.
  • In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member experienced some form of violent victimization. This translates to about 266,560 violent victimizations during household burglaries, out of about 3.7 million home invasions taking place each year on average.
  • Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

As I’ve mentioned previously, while the numbers from the home invasion statistics shown are large, and frightening, your chances of having your home burglarized are still small. But also as I mentioned previously, the risk IF you are the victim of a home invasion is too severe to overlook.

How Many Home Invasions Were Stopped by Guns

How Many Home Invasions Were Stopped by Guns

How Many Home Invasions Were Stopped by Guns

Woah, hold the presses. So the DOJ is collecting all of this data to compile home invasion statistics, spending millions and millions of dollars on research and not one time, I mean not one single, solitary time in that entire report is the words “defend” or “defense” mentioned.

Isn’t it relative to the discussion and doesn’t it provide a greater depth of understanding if you knew how many home invasions were prevented or stopped as a result of an armed victim? How many people were able to prevent burglary by being armed?

Of course, but as usual the politically motivated progressives cherry pick what they want their followers to have access to. You know, like Pelosi saying of ObamaCare, you have to pass it to see what’s inside it. Brilliant.

In fact, getting very much detail at all from the progressives on the defensive use of guns is somewhat of a classified endeavor. Someone doesn’t want something out.

In my article titled “Do Guns Save Lives” I discuss the most prevalent data we have. In particular a study ordered and conducted under President Obama, as shown below.

I’ll pull a quote from the article to save time.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence“, and which was investigated, researched and written by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council under funding provided by the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation.

Here’s an excerpt from page 15:

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.“

Read my article for more on this, but the bottom line is that in comparison to 300,000 violent crimes in 2008, at LEAST 500,000 “potential” victims used a firearm in their defense by either shooting or brandishing it, and upwards of 3 million people used a firearm in defense.

Seriously, this type of data and information pisses me off because the liberal media lies and withholds and embellishes information to the point that what they’re doing to their followers is 100% brainwashing; these people are not informed and enlightened, it’s quite the opposite.

Also in that same President Obama sanctioned report, it was shown conclusively that progressive data is being manipulated on purpose, as in the most oft cited report from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Progressives cite is as evidence of gun crimes but there’s a fatal flaw. It’s not reliable, according to Obama research, because…

“respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

They were not even asking about the defensive use of guns in a report on “gun crimes”? Right. And then they conveniently ballpark some random defensive gun use numbers and throw it out as fact, and little progressive minions around the globe use it as proof of gun crime gone crazy!

Actual Cases Of Home Invasion Gun Use

I wrote about a recent home invasion shooting in Oklahoma where the occupant of the home used a firearm in self-defense, read it to learn more about the Castle Law and Make My Day Laws.

I also highly recommend Gary Kleck’s book “Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Social Institutions and Social Change)” not because it seemingly supports a stance I have about gun control, but because he’s one of the foremost Sociologists on the subject and his studies have won him prestigious awards.

Granted, you won’t find him mentioned or discussed on your favorite liberal media channel or outlet, but I think we’ve addressed that already.

It is difficult in a progressive culture bent on weaving an anti-gun story at whatever cost (see Katie Couric’s lie if you don’t believe me) to get accurate firearms related information to progressives, because, well you know, they’re so enlightened.

It’s seen in the fact that they boycott and protest and even resort to violence to prevent someone with an opposing view from expressing it… that’s some freedom right there!

Here’s an anecdotal example of how progressives skew the data.

NYTimes blog post about gun control goes like this:

“In other words, as Wayne LaPierre put it after Newtown, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

That’s almost as catchy as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.”

Oh, so sneakily interjecting that the actual “use” of a firearm is rare so that you can counter a valid argument made by the NRA, you side-step the real intention of self-defensive gun use in that you DON’T have to shoot someone to stop a crime. Using a gun also includes brandishing it.

Just criminals seeing the firearm in a holster or you pulling it out, that prevents crime. Or even in rare cases the firing of a warning shot… that’s not USING a firearm in self-defense according to these liberals.

Never mind that we know from the government research (listed earlier) that Obama ordered and we paid for makes it crystal clear that self-defensive use of guns ranges from 1/2 million to 3 million a year.

I mean seriously, how in the hell do these people get away with this skewing of data and misleading of people for so long? How can you be a progressive and not be pissed off?

How do you feel about these home invasion statistics and are you taking (or have you taken) steps to make your home more secure?

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Guns

1 Ted Cruz Booed For RNC Speech

Published

on

By

Ted Cruz Bafoon Deluxe

Texas Vote This Bum Out!

It’s official. Ted Cruz Booed as he shows that he cares more about himself and his ego and his career than he does for the United Sates of America, and certainly more than he cares about the 2nd Amendment.

The outrageous and embarrassing Ted Cruz speech at the RNC tonight did more than get him and his wife Heidi Cruz booed (security had to escort her out of the convention), he mistakenly let his own ego and pride and wallet ruin his career and simultaneously he left the 2nd Amendment hanging in the wind like a jackass’s tail following his convention antics.

I was one of the earliest opponents of Donald Trump for President; it didn’t seem right because of the preconceived ideas I had of him. Now I know Trump better, and his ideals (especially about the 2nd Amendment) and I love his candidacy. He’s been endorsed by the NRA much earlier than any Republican candidate in a long, long time… that says something if you care about the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, I’ve always had Ted Cruz at the bottom of my list (anyone who knows me can verify it), because he just comes across as arrogant and flippant, both of which he confirmed tonight. He cocks those eyebrows “at will” to convey his innocence and sincerity… yet he’s totally shallow.

If you didn’t see the Ted Cruz Republican Convention speech I have it at the bottom of this post so you can check it out.

And Cruz has PROVEN that he’ll throw your right to defend yourself, the 2nd Amendment, out the window for the sake of his petty ego! If Hillary wins this election I don’t see how he can show his face in Texas, let alone hold another office there.

Gun Control Thanks Cruz

Washington Establishment Fears Donald Trump

Cruz made his name on the back of his “outsider” claims and “anti-establishment” banter. In truth, Cruz is a bought shill no different from any of the other big-name, established candidates, and it’s EXACTLY that, which Cruz proved himself tonight, that will get Trump elected and which will ensure that Cruz will NEVER hold the title of President in this country… maybe Canada?

Donald Trump is the only candidate we have who is truly non-establishment and who truly isn’t afraid to stand on principle and fight for our Constitution. People may not agree on everything with Trump, but name one politician who ever had that honor, ever.

But what people can do is believe what he says and trust him when he speaks. He has far more class than any of the staged politicians fronted by the wealthy elite who want Washington power and favor.

Did you know that within minutes of it becoming clear that Trump was going to win the nomination, that Ted Cruz’s financial donors (not the little guys, the one’s dropping MILLIONS), that they immediately began dumping millions in Hillary’s campaign? And we should be surprised at the Ted Cruz RNC speech?

Some political shopper and hedge fund schmo named James Simons dumped millions into Cruz’s campaign, and now all of a sudden is dumping millions into Clinton’s election? Anyone besides me see the real issue here? This guy is trying to buy power, or influence, or favors from whoever he can buy.

In the words of the Observer as to why donors buy candidates like Cruz:

Wealthy individuals contribute to campaigns because they know that, in order to keep large donations pouring in every year, candidates like Ms. Clinton and Mr. Cruz will return the favor. This cycle enables massive corporations and wealthy one-percenters to maximize their profits through tax evasion, outsourcing and government subsidies and tax breaks.

How does that make you feel about Cruz now? That his donors consider Hillary Clinton his “next best”, or “similar to” candidate?

The same with the Bush donors… they’re dropping MILLIONS to Hillary’s campaign because they fear that Trump won’t “play politics” with them and I can only assume that means they fear they’ll lose their favors and sweet government deals. Oh I hope they do.

What does this all mean?

It means these schmucks think they can keep buying this country and they’re pouting that their “guy” didn’t win and that Trump won’t “play ball” with them.

Screw Mitt Romney, the Bushes and any of the other power-elites who are whining about their loss of influence. Their refusal to show up at the RNC or to endorse Trump says it all and they’ve lost a ton of respect for their petty actions.

They would rather have Hillary as President, the person who left Americans to die, lied about issue after issue, risked national security via her careless email practices, supports the killing of law enforcement by radical anarchists, and on and on… they would rather see her win at the cost of the party values they allege to hold, rather than seeing someone win who is much more closely aligned to their party’s “stated” values?

Hmmm, I think even the simplest minded among us can see what’s going on, and just who is part of the “bought and paid for” D.C. crowd.

Party doesn’t matter, only that you play along. Guess what? I don’t think Trump will and that’s why even now billionaire power-mongers are cuddling up to ensure that Clinton wins… they don’t want to upset their control.

I didn’t expect to see Ted Cruz at convention parties, but I did expect his to show more respect and class for the conservative values and the millions and millions of Americans who are voting for Trump.

Cruz complains about his wife being attacked and uses it as his “reason” for not endorsing Trump, yet Trump and others are fairly certain that at the very least Cruz knew about and allowed Trump’s wife to be exploited and abused for political gain.

The Super PAC Make America Awesome published this little gem, which resulted in Trump’s attack on Cruz’s wife.

Melanie Trump Shamefully Exploited

If you follow this site then you know I’m a registered democrat. I’m a moderate. I vote for America every time, not party lines. I love the old democratic platform and still believe in it, but the progressives and corrupt Washington elites are killing this country and robbing our youth of any tomorrow. They’re willing to start dismantling our Bill of Rights, too.

And no right I have, no passion I have, is more dear to me than my 2nd Amendment right. No party, no candidate, no amount of “coolness” is able to sway me to participate in destroying this country, period.

If you love America then get out and vote for it. Vote for Trump and for a fresh start, and not a Clinton “restart”.

You can read the article about Cruz’s donors at the link below, but first, please leave a comment and let me know how you feel with Ted Cruz booed by the RNC convention crowd after he revealed his true colors via his speech and failure to keep his signed pledge and word to voters and party officials and candidates.

Wealthy Cruz and Bush Donors Dump Millions Into Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

 

Continue Reading

Guns

99 Concealed Carry At Work | Corporate Culpability

Published

on

By

Concealed Carry At Work - Woman With PistolFor most people concealed carry at work isn’t an option unless they want to risk being fired thanks to corporate cowardice, and thanks to the too silent majority in America who let the fringe left run amok in this country.

If a business forbids employees from carrying firearms at work or visitors from carrying concealed on their property (despite them having a CCW), without then providing proper security and personal defense for those employees and visitors, is the company liable for injury or death that results from someone not being able to defend themselves?

In a sense, what these policies are saying is that you don’t have a right to protect yourself on their premises and the business won’t do it, either. So ultimately these “we are defenseless” laws are creating a sort of smorgasbord of helpless victims for any would be criminal.

Unfortunately, many of these victims are women who find themselves helpless to violent men. Which is why many people support the bring your gun to work laws.

According to the AFLCIO, 12.7% of ALL female violent crimes occurred at the workplace. Over 30% of women who are killed at work die as a result of a violent crime. In fact, Homicide is the second leading cause of death for women at work, behind only traffic accidents.

Think that this is mere hyperbole? Think again.

Could Concealed Carry At Work Save Lives?

Danny Fabro Deranged Murderer

#JAT Danny Fabro Photo: Columbus Police

In February 17, 2017, a helpless victim named Joyce D. Fox (50) was stalked and killed as she sat in her car, at work in the Far West Side UPS Distribution Center parking lot.

Danny R. Fabro, 54, who was her estranged ex-boyfriend, approached Fox’s parked car and shot her in the head. The maniac fled the scene in his pickup, and following a police pursuit ultimately attempted to commit suicide, unfortunately failing.

Charles Pepper, Joyce’s father, had urged her just a couple of weeks prior to buy a handgun because he feared her ex-boyfriend would hurt her. Fabro had beaten her a month prior to the point that she needed hospitalization.

It’s possible that had Joyce been lawfully armed this incident would’ve resulted in a minor obituary which mentioned in passing the death of JAT (or Just Another Turd for our progressive readers).

Ohio’s gun laws didn’t prevent Fabro from unlawfully acquiring a handgun (so throw out the “need more laws” argument), nor did UPS’s flippant anti self-defense policy help save another helpless woman’s life.

Concealed Carry Policy For Employees

When it comes to concealed carry at work Florida laws are CCW friendly. The Florida Governor, Charlie Christ, signed the first Bring Your Gun To Work law in 2008.

Titled the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008”, signed into law on April 15, 2008, the law mandates that employers permit employees who are licensed to carry concealed weapons to keep firearms in their locked vehicles at work. The law applies to any employee, customer or “invitee” with a concealed weapon permit.

A few other states have followed suit, but not nearly enough. Now I hear a few progressives snorts out there, and that’s fine. But just like outlawing drugs didn’t solve the drug problem, outlawing guns won’t solve the gun violence problem.

According to the FBI, a full 60% of active shooter incidents ended before the police ever got there (the suspect committed suicide or fled the scene). So much for letting the government protect you.

In fact, as a long-time law enforcement officer I can say that it’s very rare that law enforcement prevents a violent crime at all, instead officers usually arrive after the crime occurred.

States With Bring Your Gun To Work Laws

States With Bring Your Gun To Work LawsWhen it comes to guns in the workplace state laws differ, a lot. According to ConcealedNation.org, the so-called “parking lot laws” are so confusing (because they vary so widely from state to state) that you’re better served diving into your specific state’s laws to determine exactly what it is that you’re permitted to do in your state.

Your local NRA office or state legislator can help you interpret your state’s law. Whether that be keep your firearm inside a locked vehicle or actually taking your firearm in to work (which isn’t likely). Some places like government buildings, schools, chemical and nuclear facilities, etc… have exceptions and exemptions to any right to carry law.

And quite a few states are offering immunity to those businesses who do allow concealed carry at work. That is, if a business allows its employees to carry at work, and then an employee commits a crime with that weapon at work, the business isn’t guilty of failing to provide a safe working environment as a result of its concealed carry policy for employees.

In my state, Kansas, for example, the state extends immunity from liability to 1) businesses which allow concealed handguns in the workplace and 2) those that don’t, except that an employer that prohibits weapons is only immune if it “provides adequate security measures.” Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-7c10(c)(1).

Specifically, if employers want to prevent firearms on their premises then they need to pony up the money to provide for the physical security of their employees, customers and visitors. No exception.

Among the states that do have some type of concealed carry at work laws include Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alaska, Arizona and Utah. There are others and I’ll update this list when I’ve conclusively identified the states and their laws. If you know of any please let me know in the comments.

Concealed Carry At Work – Conclusion

Concealed carry in the workplace is a much debated topic and one that we’re not going to see resolved anytime soon. However, for those who support the 2nd Amendment and it’s implications then you need to make yourself aware of and familiar with the laws in your state. And also with your employer’s policies regarding firearms at work.

If your state allows you may be able to work with your company and help them to draft a ‘weapons in the workplace policy’ that helps protect your rights as well as alleviates their requirement to protect their premises from violent crime. Working together is our best hope at crafting reasonable laws.

I’d be interested to hear about your state’s “concealed carry at work” laws and also what you think about this issue, and any experiences you’ve had regarding it. Even if you disagree, let us know why and perhaps you can offer some intelligent information to the discussion.

 

Continue Reading

Guns

Officer Involved Shooting | Officer Shoots Air Force Airman

Published

on

By

Michael Davidson  |  Source: OANow.com

 

Officer Involved Shooting On Video

On a crisp evening on March 6, 2014, driving along Alabama’s I-85, active duty Air Force Airman 1st Class Michael Davidson had no idea he was about to be the target of an officer involved shooting.

The young man was on his way to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina after having finished training at Sheppard Air Force Base (F-15 Avionics) in Wichita Falls, Texas.

The then 20-year-old Davidson was a 2012 graduate of Beckville High School in Texas.

While driving along I-85 and through the jurisdiction of the Opelika Police Department, Davidson’s SUV lightly sideswiped a tractor-trailer (semi) and so dutifully both drivers pulled over to report the accident. The semi driver, Samuel Thomas Sanders II, was a witness to what would unfold.

Prior to this accident the Opelika Police Department had received a phone call about a SUV driving erratically along I-85 (Airman Davidson was driving an SUV), and so the on-duty officer, Phillip Hancock, was in the area trying to observe the reported vehicle.

When the call came in of the SUV / tractor-trailer accident, the officer was practically right there already. The officer’s dash-cam shows that he was pulling up behind the two vehicles as they were both still pulling off of the roadway.

The officer in question, Phillip Hancock (pictured below), began working as a Police Officer in 2006 for the same department.

Airman Davidson, displaying amazing consideration for the officer’s safety, pulls way off to the edge of the shoulder so that the officer isn’t forced to stand in traffic as he works the accident. It was this consideration that ultimately led to the chain of events that would result in the officer involved shooting.

Officer Phillip Hancock | Source: FB Photos

Because Davidson pulled over to the edge of the shoulder, and onto the grassy area, his SUV was leaning to the right which meant that as he tried to open his door it would keep trying to shut on him; probably every one of us has had it happen to us while parking.

This is a traffic accident investigation, not a narcotics intervention or the tail end of a police pursuit. So keep that “setting” in mind when understanding the actions of both the victim and the officer.

Officer Involved Shooting Unfolds

Next, in the video you can see that the driver of the semi-truck (Mr. Sanders) is walking back to talk to the officer and SUV driver. After all, no one outside of Hancock, not even the semi driver, thought this was a “dangerous situation”.  When Sanders reaches the back of his truck and Davidson sees him, Davidson also begins to exit his SUV. You know, exchanging information, whatever, it’s a fender bender.

Airman Davidson is exiting the vehicle with his hands visible and extended towards the officer for visibility, and his wallet (again, being considerate) in his hand. When the weight of the angled door tries to shut back onto Davidson it sets off what Officer Hancock allegedly mistook to be a “life-threatening” door shutting event.

Specifically, the door was shutting back on him preventing his from getting out, so he put his hands to the door to push it open. This was the fatal incident that specifically led to the officer involved shooting.

Officer Hancock yells at Davidson to “Let me see your hands” twice before firing. Not ‘Stop or I’ll shoot’ or ‘Let me see your hands or I’ll shoot’. Davidson got no fair warning that he was about to be shot if he failed to comply.

Ironically (in a twisted way) as Officer Hancock approaches the scene of the accident you can hear that his radio is playing the song “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

Officer Hancock fired two rounds. One of those struck Airman Davidson in the lower stomach area severing an artery and severely damaging his colon. Davidson can be seen laying on the ground and bleeding profusely as officers walk around him and ponder his condition. The second bullet apparently struck the ground.

Thankfully Officer Hancock wasn’t a good shot.

Remember, Officer Hancock was BEHIND his vehicle when the officer involved shooting occurred, so he had metal cover for protection. He had his headlights AND spotlight on Airman Davidson, so even if Davidson had wanted to shoot the officer with his wallet he couldn’t 1) see him and 2) have much of an opportunity to hit him (small target behind cover) before being shot himself.

Opelika, Alabama

Too Many Officer Involved Shootings

I was a law enforcement officer for many years (including as a county Deputy working alone in a remote area, so I’ve had the fear factor) and later served as an elected County Sheriff, and if this scenario in which Officer Hancock shoots Mr. Davidson qualifies as a reasonable standard for law enforcement use of deadly force then yes, we have a problem.

If an officer is so afraid that he shoots someone simply because a door is shutting on them, then we have a problem. There simply has to be a better way of vetting law enforcement candidates so that we’re not getting the types of officers who can’t adequately analyze proper ‘shoot’, ‘don’t shoot’ situations.

There are too many officer involved shootings, and the poor judgement calls are making it bad for those officers who genuinely needed to use deadly force.

And that’s my point entirely, that officers shouldn’t have to be criticized for saving their own lives while on duty and citizens shouldn’t lose their lives negligently to those sworn to serve them. We must get better and get this right, for everyone’s sake.

As Sheriff I had a deputy under my command lawfully use lethal force on a suspect who died of those injuries; I understand the peril that law enforcement officers face every day and I know first hand the effect it has on officers who are forced to use deadly force.

It’s never easy and the ramifications are often lifelong for the officer, too.

Let’s not create ridiculous standards so officers are afraid to use force, but let’s not lower them to ridiculous levels either. Click To Tweet

Police Shooting Video – Split Second Witness

Officer Involved Shooting ProtocolsIf the situation preceding this officer involved shooting were a police chase, or something with violent activity or potential, then perhaps we’re having a different conversation based on what could loosely be called a resemblance of a weapon (the wallet).

But on an accident investigation the shooting is way beyond a reasonable response by an officer.

I’m not saying that the officer should be held  criminally liable… I doubt that Officer Hancock had criminal or ill-intent. He was just poorly prepared to be in that situation, either because of training (or lack thereof) or he was simply mentally incapable of responding correctly in that type of split second situation (again, due to lack of training and readiness).

Hancock may be the nicest, sweetest, gentlest man to ever walk the streets of Opelika. But in this case he made a mistake. He’s not a demon or a bad guy. He made a mistake. And it’s one serious enough that there has to be consequences.

And because law enforcement officers face these situations frequently they must get them right, period. Failing to “get it right” in these situations means that we’re going to accept a certain number of innocent officer involved shootings and deaths of citizens, and that’s just not alright.

Anyone who knows me (you can read my opinions on this site) can attest, I’m a 100% hard-core law enforcement supporter. I hate crime and thugs. But sensible men and women cannot turn a blind eye to bad actions and then wonder when citizens start to doubt the police.

To my fellow law enforcement officers reading this, you cannot blindly support any and every officer involved shooting another cop is involved in regardless of the facts. If you love this country and her people, and our laws which provide us a veil of security and safety, then you must also condemn wrong acts by other officers, even if it’s simply an unfortunate event.

Otherwise we won’t have learned from it and a patriotic American suffers without compensation because of it. Airman Davidson shouldn’t be walking around with a Colostomy bag that he had to pay for, among what must be an enormous amount of other medical bills.

When turds pull weapons on cops, or threaten them in some physical way, and later get shot in the act of being stupid, then there’s no pity. Law and order means law and order. If you obey the laws, you shouldn’t get hurt.

When you do get hurt wrongfully, as did Airman Davidson, then there must be consequences.

And by that I mean at the least that the officer be removed from deadly-force capable positions (I said at the very least, because Hancock wasn’t), and the victim must be compensated and have their injuries and expenses covered, and in fatal cases their families need to be provided for.

I hope that this case is appealed to the Supreme Court and that the sensible men and women of the court can listen to the evidence and watch this case unfold for themselves, and see that this was a negligent act, plain and simple.

Officer Involved Shooting – Officer Hancock vs Wallet

Here’s the dash cam so that you can watch the officer involved shooting unfold for yourself.

What stands out after watching it? First, when I see this is just pisses me off. That could be you or I, or our family. Getting awkwardly out of the car now warrants deadly force… wow.

Over 5 minutes went by as this American citizen and U.S. serviceman laid on the ground bleeding (an artery was severed by Hancock’s bullet, as witnessed by the growing pool of blood) and not one police officer put on rubber gloves and tried to render medical aid (stop the bleeding, etc…), 5 flipping minutes! They walked around him like it was a side-show. How would you feel if it was your brother or son, or you?

Yes, law enforcement did later recover opened packets of the synthetic drug Spice (synthetic marijuana) from inside of Davidson’s SUV, but that’s really irrelevant because Davidson didn’t do or say anything inappropriate that would lead a reasonable officer to shoot him and the officer had no knowledge of it when the shooting occurred.

Davidson was in a fender bender and pulled over to report it. He went out of his way to be polite and cooperative. Click here to see the full front page of this police report.

Evidence of Spice Seized From Davidson Vehicle

Listing of evidence items taken from Davidson’s SUV

Hancock Cleared In Officer Involved Shooting

Davidson rightfully filed a lawsuit against the officer and the city, which you can read here.

The 3 Judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower courts ruling, in favor of the police officer, by stating:

“After careful consideration and review of a video recording of the shooting, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davidson, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Hancock’s position would have feared for his life.“

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Eastern Division, which issued the original decision on the lawsuit in December 2016, also ordered Davidson to pay $15,354.82 for legal costs to the city of Opelika, Hancock and McEachern.

Can the B.S. get any deeper in this case?

People say “you don’t know what it’s like to be a cop” or “you do that job“. Well, yes I do. And I have.

Cops don’t get to shoot innocent people and get away with it. Even if they did it on accident or they “thought” they were acting properly but were later shown to “not” have been. There has to be consequences like getting fired, or at the very least the employer having to pay for damages.

Officer involved shootings are a fact of life in our hip hop and Hollywood fueled violent culture, but we must strive for better.

If you had a CCW and made a similar mistake you would almost certainly be in trouble.

Concluding This Opinion Piece

My parting words are this. If anyone pulls a knife or gun on a cop, or is reasonably believed to have a knife or gun, or otherwise shows the intent and capability to harm a law enforcement officer then those officers have every right (and I expect them to) shoot those suspects. Most police shootings fall into those categories.

Those people who threaten and do harm to law enforcement, what do you suppose they would do to you and your family in a confrontation? Exactly… they’re bad people and when those criminals are killed or injured by law enforcement in a justifiable way then it’s one less turd on the street.

We can’t let officers who wrongfully shoot a citizen cloud our judgement against the men and women who do the dirty work of keeping us safe. Clearly there is an overwhelmingly larger percentage of good cops and great law enforcement happening in our communities, than there are officer involved shootings like the one with Airman Davidson here.

In fact, so many people fueled by ignorance or hate (often both) forget how much these men and women give for us and our families every day. Let’s never forget the price so many have to pay doing it.

However, we live in a society of laws and moral decency, and we expect it from every citizen and even more so from the men and women who wear the badges of honor that we bestow upon them.

In my opinion officers get into situations like this if they’re always looking for the bad guys and fail to see the good ones, that’s why it all becomes a blur and this shit happens.

Likewise, when the media and political scumbags use these rare police shooting instances as a platform for creating more divide for dollars (see my article on mass shooting statistics to see what I mean), then good citizens need to call then out.

Law-abiding citizens should be safe from negligent officer involved shootings, and there should be consequences when citizens are harmed by their protectors.

I hope the Davidsons pursue this appeal and perhaps even start a GoFundMe.com page.

And I hope Americans start having the back of good law enforcement officers. They need us as much as we need them, and officer involved shootings are truly a minor fraction of all police contacts. Don’t you agree?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.