Brain-Locked Social Science

The WaPo wrings its hands about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law; they recycle some brain-locked social science that has been circulating for a while (and was cited by the New York City Council in their resolution supporting Trayvon Martin):

According to the Tampa Bay Times [link], Florida experienced an average of 34 “justifiable homicides” before 2005; two years after the Stand Your Ground law was enacted, the number jumped to more than 100. Similarly disturbing spikes have been found in other states with similar laws. According to an analysis of FBI data done by the office of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) [link], who co-chairs the 650-strong Mayors Against Illegal Guns [link], states that passed Stand Your Ground laws experienced a 53.5 percent increase in “justifiable homicides” in the three years following enactment; states without such laws saw a 4.2 percent increase.

The obvious response - if the law expands the definition of justifiable homicide, then one might reasonably expect the number of cases newly classified as justifiable homicide to go up whether human behavior changes or not. (If we formerly defined a tall person as “over six feet” and change that to “over 5’ 8″, the number of ‘tall’ people goes up.  Later I will explain how to boil water...)

The question (not addressed by the WaPo, but perhaps in the study) is whether there is an offsetting drop in cases previously classed as negligent homicide (or something else, such as voluntary manslaughter).

In other words, has behavior changed, leading to more total gun deaths, or has behavior remained unchanged while the classification scheme has changed? If gray-area, coulda gone either way killings are about the same, that would seem to make a difference in determining whether this new law has led to some sort of crisis.

A possibly fruitful avenue for an eager social scientist would be this: look at some plausible sampling of Florida homicides from 2004 (pre-revision) that were either treated as justifiable or negligent (for simplicity, I will assume those are the only two possibilities; voluntary manslaughter may be the term I am looking for to describe a self-defense killing).  Then enlist some legal talent to guess how many of the negligent homicides would have been reclassified as justifiable under the new law.  The result would be a baseline projection in the impact of the new law if behavior does not change.  (Obviously, data collection may be an issue - a case that was open and shut negligence under the old law may have not left enough of a paper trail to guess its disposition under the new law.)

Or, one could look at actual cases: Politfact sorta-kinda did that and found that in Florida justifiable homicides roughly tripled.  They leave unremarked that justifiable homicides by police officers (presumably not covered by the new law) also tripled.  Weird.  They don't make the obvious point about any drop in reclassified negligent homicides, or put this in perspective with total gun deaths or total murders in Florida.  FWIW, I see 987 murders in 2010 versus 40 justifiable homicides by civilians; if I were threatened by a stampede of mice and elephants...

For a different look, let's get some help from the NY Times; writing in August 2006, Adam Liptak advises us that:

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Well, here are the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for justifiable homicides by civilians, nationwide, 2000 to 2010.  I am posting pages from the 2006 and 2010 reports, which collectively cover 2002 to 2010.  Don't ask me why the numbers differ for 2006 between the reports; They are close, and I assume revisions.

and

Out national crisis - from 233 justifiable homicides in 2002 to a low of 196 in 2005, followed by an increase to 278 in 2010.  And where handguns were employed?  From 158 down to 123 in 2005 and back to 170.  That is against total homicides of 12,996 in 2010, which is down from roughly 16,000 in 2002 (I am looking at the 2004 report with numbers for 2003; the earlier reports are in a different computer format).  Let me add:

The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

Negligent homicides reports, anyone?  Obviously, with automobiles and weapons separated.

NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND, BUT INTERESTING:

From the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2007:

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter

According to the UCR Program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter are defined as the willful killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. Not included under this classification are deaths caused by accident, suicide, negligence, or justifiable homicides. 2

According to figures compiled by the UCR program, 61% of all murders committed in Florida, from 1996 through 2007, involved a firearm (see Figure 4). During this time period, there were 11,658 murders committed in Florida. As illustrated in Figure 4, the patterning of firearm-related murders is parallel to that of all murders. Figure 5 displays non-negligent manslaughter firearm trend. From 1996-2007, 1,505 non-negligent manslaughters were reported in Florida. Approximately nine percent of those reported involved a gun. Although the reported number of non-negligent manslaughters has annually increased since 2002, the number of incidents that were firearm-related has remained relatively stable; no more than 20 incidents have been reported during this time frame.

Reportedly the lead investigator in the Zimmerman case wanted a charge:

A Sanford Police incident report shows the case was categorized as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”

That would be rare in Florida, if I understand the FDLE report.

Combining the FDLE report with the Politifact numbers, we are getting roughly 10-20 negligent homicides per year in Florida from 1996-2007, versus about 12 justifiable homicides annually before 2005 and 35 annually afterwards.  I think I am still missing manslaughter cases, which would be how some self-defense cases should have been resolved.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2718130/sanford-cops-wanted-to-charge.html#storylink=cpy

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

Sounds like the new law is working.

[henry]

Tom M, there you go with a reasoned review of facts again. Next you'll point out that in gun crime statistics 28 or under is a youth, so this is merely another minority youth shoots minority youth because of evil guns event. Or is is evil laws pushed by the NRA? The left changes narrative more often than than they change underwear.

[Rick Ballard]

"In the last year [2006], 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder."

Hmmmm....

That is against total homicides of 12,996 in 2010, which is down from roughly 16,000 in 2002

(It was 17,034 in 2006)

Wow - talk about your serendipity.

[Clarice]

Tom takes all the fun out of stuff. I'm sure steve and sybilvia and bubu will agree with me--Stamp out Logic!

[boatbuilder]

The WSJ has a much more rational article on the same subject--they raise but do not answer the question of whether the change in classification rather than an increase in the use of deadly force is responsible for the stats.

[Tom Maguire]

The WSJ has a much more rational article on the same subject...

Hmm, here's hoping you mean "more rational" than the Tampa Bay Times, not me.

I read that article a few days ago - the author said in half a sentence what I said in twelve, but I couldn't remember how he phrased it, so I invoked the "No Dead Horse Left Behind, Unbeaten" rule.

[boatbuilder]

Also TM--I once again bow to your superior wisdom. I said the other day that Crump didn't need a conviction to succeed with a civil wrongful death suit; while that is strictly true the WSJ says that the FL stand your ground statute "immunizes the killer from civil lawsuits."

If so that may shed some light on some of the maneuvering going on.

[boatbuilder]

I meant more rational than the WaPo. You did a masterful job here Tom--The WSJ article I refer to is in Todays paper and doesn't go near as deep as you did.

But since you apparently committed some sort of unforgiveable gaffe with parentheses, I take it all back.

[Clarice]

OT: From Don Surber who also makes me laugh and therefore is my favorite:

"Soledad O’Brien’s unpopularity is symptomatic of how out-of-touch CNN is. The network lost its credibility with conservatives, who are the core audience for cable TV news. MSNBC at least can get frat boy libs to tune in at night. CNN? It has to stick TVs in dental offices, airports and gas chambers to get people to watch. If I were about to be executed, I would say, hurry up before Wolf Blitzer comes back on.

On top of all that, Miss O’Brien is not all terribly bright. Apparently she misunderstood critical race theory, which is OK unless you are interviewing someone on the subject."

[DebinNC]

Read a lawyer cited as saying the homeowners association could be sued, and if they don't have insurance then the complex's residents could be sued. Can't imagine a jury outside of Oakland that would go for that.

[jorod]

Liberals don't like law abiding citizens winning out over criminals.

[Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA]

Some examples where the Trayvon treatment did not occur.
http://polipundit.com/?p=37011

[boatbuilder]

If he was acting as an agent of the Condo Association--i.e., as an "authorized" neihborhood watch member, then they probably can and will be sued.

[Porchlight]

Wow, our host really seems to have a lot more time on his hands recently. Reminds me of the Libby days...

[Jane]

It's great Porch - Thanks TM

[daddy]

It is so refreshing to be back in the States and no longer having to watch CNN International in overseas hotel rooms and lobbys.

What makes it worse over there is that there are no advertisements like we have over here, so during all those interminable breaks, we get glorious advertisements of each of CNN's Anchor people. It's bad enough just watching them the first time, but having to slug thru' cameo's where they tell us how dedicated and in love they are with the process of journalism is wretch inducing. Did you know that they got into the Journalism business because they wanted to make a difference? Suppose I heard that line 50 times over the last 2 weeks.

And am I actually now hearing that there are some pundits who are expressing anger that some of the Supreme's didn't read all 2,700 pages of ObamaCare?

[Porchlight]

It is great, Jane.

CNN is torture. I don't know how you do it, daddy.

Yes, they're angry that Scalia would joke about reading the whole thing. They can't understand why they *wouldn't* read the whole thing.

[Chubby]

((then they probably can and will be sued. ))

that will be a big financial help to Trayvon's father's girlfriend, NOT

[matt]

by the way, I believe Breyer said the same thing as Scalia.

[Danube of Thought]

I concur with boatbuilder at 1:48.

[Gus]

Why does the LIBERAL MEDIA never do any stories on the disproportionate amount of BLACK on BLACK gun shot deaths.
The hand wringing over a Skittles untimely demise is amusing. It's too bad Skittles got himself shot, but, young black men shoot each other every single day of the year. The LEFT are shyting their collective pants over one young man who got shot during an altercation, but they couldn't give a fiddlers fart about the carnage that occurs every day in America. The MEDIA is desperate to make RACIAL division and sell ads.

[matt]

A very interesting article on American decline and the bankruptcy of our political leadership. LUN

Gary, Indiana is the blueprint for what not to do.

[matt]

how 'bout a link?

[scott]

I have been curious about this, also. Zimmerman was either going to or returning from Target on his own time. I don't remember which. Do they do official shifts? He self identified as a captain, maybe this is enough for a civil suit.

[Tom Maguire]

Reminds me of the Libby days...

Its this or do my taxes. If I could just muster the same curiosity for the location of my medical records...

[Ignatz]

--Its this or do my taxes.--

With a tax extension or two you might be able to update daily until Patrick Fitzgerald is reassigned to put Zimmerman in Scooter Libby's empty cell.

[AliceH]

If I could just not do my taxes more, I'd be all caught up on my yardwork and housework.

[Clarice]

Help is on the way says Amazon:

Prepare and File Your Taxes for FREE with TurboTax 2011 (Kindle Fire Edition)
www.amazon.com
Simply start your new return with TurboTax (Kindle Fire Edition) by April 1, and when you file, TurboTax will pay your tax preparation and filing fees.

[Jack is Back!]

Don't know if Sharpton's march went off but very heavy weather has been moving through Central Florid from th Gulf northeast through the First Coast. Chased us out of Sea World wet to the bone. I noted when this first started about HOA liability especially if Zimmerman wasn't vetted properly. But Florida has some very detailed HOA and Condo statutes and there may even be some immunity built in to them. I don't know for sure but I know that the fees I pay for both of my HOA's have liability insurance as a cost allocation.

[Gmax]

Suing a Homeowners Association? Most of them I am familiar with have a few thousand in the bank, a dusty set of books and the technical ownership of common area ( sometimes flood plain ) and maybe a pool which is a negative cashflow stream. They might have de minimus insurance but I doubt its much. Seems like any judgement gained is met with a hardy laugh and a BK filing.

Just like you cant sue the stockholders of a corporation, I fail to see how the individual residents would have any liability here at all.

[Gmax]

Race hustler Crump may be angling to sue the City, which probably has immunity by law. Seems like a payday may well elude the ambulance chaser on this one.

[Gmax]

I think JiB is correct about there being lots of laws for condominiums, due to the proliferation of them in the State. All the snowbirds follow 95 and 75 down to the east coast and west coast and have a second place where the owner's association takes care of everything outside the 4 walls.

For example only place I know of that has a successor developer law. Basically, if the original builder developer has some flaws in design or construction and goes bust, the next guy in title gets handed the bill. No way around it unless there is a deminimus number of remaining units.

[jimmyk]

I'm pretty sure HOAs get sued all the time. They have insurance policies to protect them. I was on the board of our co-op and we were sued for some ridiculous amount because someone allegedly tripped on the sidewalk.

[Gmax]

Jimmy that is is penny ante stuff. Not the big payday the race hustler is looking for. I bet their coverage is 100K unless they had the foresight to get an umbrella policy. And some HOA counsel advise against carrying too much insurance, as it makes you a more tempting target.

[PaulV]

Did that anaylsis include innocent verdicts? I expect that there were quite a few/

[DebinNC]

HOA could be sued, and if it loses community members (I assume owners, not renters) could be issued "special assessments". I wonder if Ben Crump will be allowed to jury shop?

[Porchlight]

Yes I did, Ignatz - but I like rse's take, too.

Don't worry about DST during Human Achievement Hour tonight, rse! All my lights are going on - every single one. Plus every appliance, laptop, TV, stereo component, etc.

And I think I will blast Marriage of Figaro.

8:30-9:30 your time, wherever you are...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/human-achievement-hour-vs-earth-hour

[Porchlight]

oops, wrong thread, sorry! I'm just a dumb conservative so these "science" threads are so confusing...

[henry]

Thanks for the reminder Porch!

[Ari Tai]

The other good stat to include is victims of violent crime. A victim of violent crime has a much larger negative impact on civil society than killings. The victims often become slaves to their fear and this reflects on all their relationships and those they interact with - whereas killing, criminal and not, results in grief and a healing grieving which is quickly put in the past and forgotten save for a tragic few in the immediate family and dependents.

Though many still believe "better Red than dead." Or "please don't defend yourself, your family, your neighborhood or your property.. we want to maintain the appearance of civility even if means living in well justified fear."

[Forbes]

"In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder."

That can't be right--formerly subjected them to prosecution for murder--as murder presumes premeditation. Manslaughter would be more likely, yes?

TM's analysis--a change in the definition of justifiable homicide captures more incidents in the newly clarified/specified definition--strikes me as the only explanation short of the detailed data collection he suggests. In other words, all others are pontificating with an agenda, and without facts/data upon which they pronounce--what I call agenda journalism.