Injuries and guns

Hello, everyone. This time I need help with injuries and guns.
The first thing is a injury. I want my main male character to be shot in the neck and have his carotid artery damaged, but his respiratory tract will remain intact. He will be shot from the front with an average pistol (you know - beretta or something like that) during one of the raids he will be in charge of.
Basic information - at the time of the story he is 33 years old, and this happened in the past - one year ago or even earlier, so he was even younger then. He is tall (196 cm to be precise) and he weighs 90-100 kg. He is healthy and in good fitness.
So my question is - can he survived this injury provided he will get into hospital really quickly? He will also have 2 colleagues who will rush to help him.
If it is survivable, how long it will take before he is fully recovered? Let´s say his carotid artery will be open up, but not torn completely. And the last question is - will he have a scar on his neck after this injury? If yes, then of what length the scar will be? I will be OK with any rough guesses (in cm or other units of length).
Or perhaps if you have any other ideas, feel free to write them down. But before you do that, you should know - he is a federal agent who wears a quite good bullet-proof vest when in work, which is almost nonstop, so shooting in chest is probably out of question. Besides, he fills prisons with thieves, so I don´t think that anyone of these thieves will have something more than an average pistol.

Well, the second part of this thread is about guns. Actually, I have only one question. What is the procedure in case of a stolen gun? This question also concerns the above mentioned federal agent. He has legally held weapon (SIG Sauer P226), but this weapon is stolen from his flat during the seemingly ordinary break-in. This federal agent will, of course, inform the police that his weapon was stolen. But it is enough? You know, a weapon is not a credit card, you can´t just call your bank and they block it when it is stolen, so nobody can reach your money, and a credit card is, in fact, useless. I want this gun to be later used in double murder, and besides the fact, that two men were killed by his gun, this federal agent has also a motive, since he suspects that these two are involved in his mother´s murder and the attack on this federal agent. Yet, I need him to be free, not in prison, suspended at best.

I will grateful for every piece of advice.

 

You're saying "federal agent" so that suggests you're in the US, but you're using metric measurements and talking about flats, which suggests you're elsewhere.

Knowing your jurisdiction will be useful.

In general terms, it seems quite possible that your character could survive the injury, if he got to the ER fast enough. See, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741521405007615

For the scar? I think it would depend on whether your bullet went through his neck or grazed his neck. A couple centimetres on both sides, maybe, for a bullet going through? And maybe four or five centimetres if it was a graze? But I'm just guessing.

In terms of the gun theft... what else do you think might be done? He'd report the theft, it'd be investigated, and then when the crimes were committed with the gun, he'd probably be notified. But I can't see why he'd be in any sort of trouble just because he was robbed, unless you're setting this in a jurisdiction with very strict gun laws...

 

"Average pistol" is a pretty broad brush to be working with. Even Beretta makes more than a few dozen models that use different calibre ammunition and all have different specs.

As for theft from a Canadian perspective. If you have a firearm stolen, you call the cops, they come and investigate, determine if all proper precautions were taken to secure the weapon. Canadian law says they have to be secured in a gun safe when not in use and have trigger locks attached, so if you were showing gross negligence on that part, then the police might issue a fine, but for the most part it's doubtful any further negative thing would happen to the victim of a crime. However, as far as I know, stolen weapons aren't returned to the original owner when they're recovered. I'm fairly sure that they go into evidence and that evidence has to be retained for a number of years. I do know, however, that if a weapon is stolen and replaced by insurance, then the original weapon would legally no longer belong to you. The ownership and license transfers to the new weapon and law enforcement would be under no obligation to notify you of anything.

 

They can leave round scars behind, just depends on caliber and where the body is hit.
Some will pass through the body better than others, and some will just stop part way
creating the need to have larger scarring around the surgery site.

 

Yes, you´re right, I am not from the USA. If I wrote about something from my native country, it would be really boring, I think. Words like a flat would not be problem, for I write in my native language. But still, I honestly thank you for reminding me to use feet, inches etc..
Well, since the bullet has not a bone or something like that in its way, I think it will be easy for it to go through. I think skin and muscles won´t be able to stop it so the bullet will not be stuck in his neck.
Well, I just wanted to be sure that there is not something I don´t know. And perhaps I should be more concrete. Well, imagine you´re a detective who has two dead men in a van. Because of a fire of the van you have some difficulties to find out who they were and what happened to them, still you can gather some evidence like pieces of bullets large enough, so they can be linked to a certain gun. Later the weapon is found with no other fingerprints except those of the federal agent. Ballistics confirms that it is the weapon that killed those two men. Then you find out that the weapon belongs to a federal agent. You do not know this federal agent, what is he like. But what you know is that these men reportedly killed the federal agent´s mother and this agent is after them for several months, maybe more. You also have the information that this agent has all the signs of the obsessed person whose only goal is to catch those responsible for his mother´s death; he has no personal life, he spends all his time in work. So, he has a motive, theoretically he also had an opportunity. You know that the weapon was stolen, but you start to think - what if all of this was staged? What if there was no break-in? What if the gun was not stolen? What if it was just because the federal agent could say that this gun was stolen? What if he had decided to pursue his own justice on these men? He is a federal agent after all. He has been working in FBI for almost ten years, he knows the procedures in investigation. He can say whether someone is lying to him, because he knows the signs of lying, so he knows what he should behave like. He is a very intelligent person. During the interrogation this federal agent argues that if he really wanted to kill them, he would do it in a way that no one would know. He would not kill them with his own gun in the first place, he is more intelligent and he would get rid of the gun in a better way, etc..
Technically, he could have committed a perfect crime because no one would think that a federal agent would be that stupid and would kill someone with his own gun, for example.
Yes, I still need to think what would lead a detective to this federal agent, what makes him be curious whether this agent has an alibi, whether he has a motive, etc.. But I hope you see what I mean.
Have you seen the movie called "Basic instinct" with Sharon Stone? It is quite similar. Stone´s Catherine Tramell argues that she would be stupid to write a book in which a woman kills men with an ice pick and then really do it.

 

I don't think you give your country enough credit. From what I remember of history, Slovakia has a very rich history and I don't thing I found any of it boring, but you do you.

I think if you knew what kind of agency he worked for, that that would help with your weapons questions. Not an expert, but I think most agencies issue weapons to their agents and a bit of research could tell you what kind of weapon it was and that would tell you more conclusively what kind of damage it could do. You might have a problem with having it stolen, though. From the police officers I've known in Canada, they've had to check their weapons at the station when going off shift and I'm sure losing a weapon while on duty could merit some sort of disciplinary action. If the weapon was his personal weapon rather than their issued weapon, that would solve some problems, though. This is all from a Canadian perspective, though, so other countries might have different rules.

 

Yes, I forgot to mention that this gun which will be stolen, is not his, it does not belong to FBI. He has one - glock which belong to FBI, and the other one is his "private" gun. And this "private" gun will be stolen. I apologize, my bad.

 

I think as long as he reported the theft, he'd probably still be fine. I don't think I'd have trouble believing it in a novel if his bosses put him on desk duty or paid leave while they sorted things out, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough to convict him of a crime.

 

It's a tough question because it all depends where he lives. In my state, for example, if your house is locked but your gun is not locked up, OR if your house is unlocked but your gun is locked up, OR if you replace "house" with "vehicle" in either of the above scenarios, you are not going to be in any legal trouble because you've taken reasonable steps to secure your firearm. But if you leave your house unlocked and you've got a loaded pistol on the counter and someone steals it while you're away and commits a crime with it, you are in just as much trouble as the person who actually committed the crime.

There are also laws concerning the reporting of stolen firearms. Some states do NOT require a person to report a stolen firearm to the police. In other states, you only have 72 hours to report. I would recommend searching "stolen firearm laws by state" to see what's out there.

 

Where do you live that the original gun owner (with poor gun security) would be just as responsible as the person who committed the crime? That seems draconian...

 

Iowa. Until recently, the state's gun laws were a lot stricter than you'd expect for a state with so many rural residents. Before the state legislature passed new legislation last year it was illegal to carry a gun on a snowmobile or ATV, which is ridiculous considering how many farmers there are in Iowa.

Concerning gun theft and securing firearms in the home, different states have very different laws. A brief overview.

 

That article says "These laws often have an exception for situations where a gun is stolen as part of a burglary. If the gun is stolen during a break-in and then ends up in the hands of a minor who uses it poorly, it does not matter whether the gun was secure; the owner is not at fault."

And then I found a more specific Iowa case with a prosecutor describing a series of crimes committed with a stolen gun. "He [the prosecutor] said he realizes the gun owner isn’t at fault for the crime but he thinks they should be more responsible and keep their weapons in secure places to help prevent crimes."

 

Well, he lives in Raleigh, NC, and I have just read that North Carolina does not require firearms owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm, which is weird, at least in my opinion.
He is a federal agent, so I guess he should be able to cite whatever law necessary even at midnight. He is certainly not a negligent person. He takes his job very seriously. Thank you for your advice.

 

It's possible the last round of legislation I mentioned included changes to the theft laws, but I'm repeating what I was told by my instructor for concealed carry in 2016. If neither your house/car or gun is secured and it is then stolen, you can be in a lot of legal trouble. If one or the other is secured, then you're probably okay.

 

I agree with the possibility of "a lot of legal trouble"... but I expect it would be civil rather than criminal (like, the victims of the crime might sue you). There's an element of criminal law called mens rea and it loosely translates to "guilty mind"; I just can't see how someone could prove mens rea for a crime someone else committed.

 

If you are still not persuaded, then what about another facts - he is a short-tempered person; he needs to take pills so he can sleep at night since his mother´s death, and he feels that they do not work anymore (I know that such pills have probably no effect on his mood, but it demonstrate that he may have problems to cope with this trauma); his mother was killed in front of his eyes and he is still full of remorse he could not have saved her, especially when she did have only him after the divorce with her husband; it is more than an ordinary case he needs to investigate, it is a damn personal thing; also the fact that those responsible for his mother´s death are still free and somewhere out there even after several months? Can you imagine how it must feel?
And in fact, I know one case, in which a cop murdered a woman. Fortunately, he did not get away with it, but still, it is hard to believe that anyone who is a cop or federal agent, whoever, who should protect us, is capable of a murder. And there is also an image for public. I do not think that his supervisors would be happy if something like that case with the cop happened inside of FBI, if public knew that there is a federal agent who is capable of a murder.
Yes, these are mostly indirect proofs and fingerprints can easily be challenged, since he is the original owner of the gun, but still, there are circumstances which need to be considered.

 

You may very well be right. Civil cases are a whole different animal. A justified homicide (e.g. no criminal charges filed) in self-defense in Minnesota a couple years back cost the shooter $150k+ in legal defense. It also looks like New Jersey has pretty stringent civil liability laws for stolen firearms.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of. I'm not saying he wouldn't be upset.

I'm talking about criminal charges. For the prosecutor to lay charges, the prosecutor has to believe a conviction is likely, and for a conviction to be likely there'd have to be quite a bit of proof. A guy needing to take sleeping pills doesn't mean much in terms of a murder charge. Are we talking about different things?

 

No, but I just wanted you to know the background story, so you can understand what I mean when I wrote he will have some problems after his gun is stolen, although I know this has a lot of holes which point on someone else, I am aware that a prosecutor would probably not go into this case, because he could not be sure he will win. I just tried to justify my cause why I think he would have problems. And this is a very important moment in my story which will contribute to the main character´s change to the worse.

 

So what do you suggest? Do you have any recommendations for my main character, but also for the burglars? Please, write down everything that comes to your mind. I would be very grateful. But still I need the whole thing to look "innocent", like ordinary break-in, so no one would be suspicious, because these things happen, not every day, but they happen.
I never said that he has the gun somewhere in the drawer and thinks nothing wrong can happen. He is a naive person, but more in terms that concern "fight between good and evil", and certainly not in terms that he cannot be a victim of burglars because he is an FBI agent, for example.

 

I made sure to bring the oxyacetylene torch. From my sources I had learned he possessed an armoured steel gun safe bolted to a masonry wall, with 4 point lock bolts and an 8 digit code lock. I used my disc cutter with the silencer attachment, then tip-toed toward his bedroom, the crowbar and hammer in my hand.