To shoot or to warn...?


PDA






Gaiudo
October 3, 2006, 12:36 AM
A quick question on which I have thought often in the past week: say you are frequenting your local convenience store/location of choice, say with your family, and someone pulls a gun. Being a good responsible citizen, and honoring your God-given role to protect and care for the welfare of your family, you have a concealed carry permit. The situation escalates to the point where you are concerned for your safety and those you love, so you quietly drawn unnoticed, from concealment, and unnoticed by the BG. Now, question:

Do you a) say something along the lines of "drop it or I'm gonna splatter your graymatter on the wall, you %$*@#$; or b) drop him with a shot from behind with no warning? I know there are a variety of issues in play, such as legalities, self-preservation, general ethics, etc. Any and all may be discussed, though I would prefer we didn't ONLY stick on the "you're gonna get sued" response.

Nick

If you enjoyed reading about "To shoot or to warn...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ditchtiger
October 3, 2006, 12:41 AM
Act on what will get the least amount of people hurt,( bad guy not included)

FTF
October 3, 2006, 12:47 AM
Who knows.

If he's pointing a gun at the clerk, I doubt I would say something agressive to him.

If I had a shot, I would take it. If, as your scenario says, I managed to get my gun drawn and be in the position to give a warning... I wouldn't bother. If my family were there I would take the shot and worry about the law later.

I certainly wouldn't trust the perp to finish his robbery, safely holster his weapon and move away from my family as he left the premises. I would certainly shoot before waiting for that outcome.

By myself, or with the clerk in danger I probably wouldn't be as gung-ho.

hso
October 3, 2006, 12:49 AM
You shoot to defend the life of another or yourself. If that is the case you don't have to opportunity to act like you're on a bad TV movie.

EatBugs
October 3, 2006, 12:52 AM
I'd warn him. If I shoot from behind it violates the old cowboy code of ethics. Don't shoot em in the back. Besides I would go through life thinking, if I warned him, he might of droped it and I might not have had to killed him. Unless, he was some drunk/high stark raving mad lunitic and I thought he would probably shot as soon as he turned around. Then I might snipe from the back if I didn't think I could pull the trigger faster than than I could see his intention to pull the trigger...

ehh... I'm a cronic fence sitter.

XavierBreath
October 3, 2006, 12:54 AM
Each situation is unique, thus there are no hard fast rules.

There is no legal burden placed on the lawful citizen defending his or another's life to give warning.

There have been ample examples (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm) of warning shouts and shots resulting in the lawful CCW holder as well as other innocents being shot.

I will not give up any advantage in a life or death situation. Do not expect me to be fair or nice. Expect me to live.

RNB65
October 3, 2006, 12:57 AM
I think most folks would recommend not trying to be a hero in such a situation. Retreat and try to find cover and a defensible position. Draw your weapon and be prepared to defend yourself but only if necessary.

If the threat escalates to the point you feel you need to use your weapon to defend yourself, don't give away the element of suprise. Take the time to hit your target and fire with no warning. Most BG's are counting on their victims being scared and passive so the element of suprise should give you a chance to get off a well placed first shot.

p.s. Never assume that the BG is a bad shot. He just may not be and you don't want to find out.

Geronimo45
October 3, 2006, 01:12 AM
Call the Federales the second you see it happening. Point the gun. Before you warn the guy, if you decide on doing that, draw a bead on him. If he points the gun at you, fire.

Cueball
October 3, 2006, 01:49 AM
In a situation like that, there is no time for debate, fence sitting, or waffling on the issue. Nor is it the time to give up any advantages you may have(cover/concealment, element of surprise, etc). If the situation has escalated to the point that I feel the need to draw my weapon I absolutely would not give any sort of warning. We have no legal requirement to do so, and it puts you and your family in this example, in further danger than already present. I would take careful aim and drop the BG without hesitation.

DoubleTapDrew
October 3, 2006, 01:53 AM
I think most folks would recommend not trying to be a hero in such a situation. Retreat and try to find cover and a defensible position. Draw your weapon and be prepared to defend yourself but only if necessary.

I know this is the generally accepted course of action but when I took my CCW class the officer teaching it said you are obligated to protect your life and the life of others in such a situation. Although it is probably not likely, he said you might even be asked by cops afterwards why you didn't intervene if you were armed. I'd feel pretty horrible if after cleaning the register he shot some poor clerk in the head then ran out of the store while I cowered in the back of the store with my pistol in hand. Just a thought.

thexrayboy
October 3, 2006, 02:15 AM
The comment by an officer during a CCW class that you are obligated to defend yourself and others may be noble but is not true. You have no legal obligation to defend the life of another person. You may have a moral and ethical one but that is a personal question for you to answer. The Supreme Court has already held on many occasions that the police cannot be held liable if they fail to protect a citizen. One can hardly believe that citizens can be held legally accountable for failing to act to protect someone else in danger when the police cannot be legally held accountable to the same standard.

In a situation like that you have to decide what to do based on the immediate circumstances. However pondering the what if scenarios beforehand may make it easier to deal with the situation if it ever arises in
the future.

TimboKhan
October 3, 2006, 04:16 AM
It really does depend on the situation. Obviously, as a Marine, we were taught to scream "UNITED STATES MARINE!! DROP THE WEAPON!!" at every available opportunity, but we were also trained to take well-aimed shots with no warning if the situation warranted it.

Not that you mentioned it, but my only hard and fast rule is that I will not fire a warning shot. If I have to pull the trigger, it's for keeps. That is a direct result of my Marine training, and I think its darn good advice.

Now, with all that being said, who knows how I would really react? I would love to say with 100% certainty that I could shout a warning and deliver a bullet or bullets directly into the kill zone if need be. I have trained (in as much as I can train with a limited budget and average skills) to ensure that I am a responsible gun owner and a skilled pistoleer, in addition to having had some combat experience in the Marines. Unfortunately, I think it is also possible that if that happens, my adrenaline and fears and all the rest will result in me screaming "I LIKE CHEESE! DROP YOUR HAT!" and then forgetting to flick the safety off, resulting in me throwing my gun at the bad guy superman style. I think that's extremely unlikely, but who really knows until they have been put into that situation? Thats why training, even on a limited budget, is so important. If you have trained well, in a crisis you will revert to training. You might not revert to it in perfect classroom form, but you will still revert back to it, and thats good.

razorburn
October 3, 2006, 05:56 AM
If he's facing towards the clerk, does not see me while I draw on him, I'd warn. If he's facing towards me and I somehow managed to draw unseen, or I otherwise don't have the jump on him to be able to know I have the reaction time advantage over him, or the situation otherwise giving me that time to safely issue a warning, then I'd just shoot.

Standing Wolf
October 3, 2006, 06:24 AM
If I saw a cockroach in my house, I wouldn't warn it, either.

critter
October 3, 2006, 09:19 AM
BOOM!

Sistema1927
October 3, 2006, 09:24 AM
...when I took my CCW class the officer teaching it said you are obligated to protect your life and the life of others in such a situation. Although it is probably not likely, he said you might even be asked by cops afterwards why you didn't intervene if you were armed.

BS

Even cops don't have an obligation to protect, as the courts have ruled. Do you think that the burden is higher for you?

Each situation will be different, but you have no legal obligation to protect the lives of others. Moral? Yes, but not legal.

ilbob
October 3, 2006, 09:29 AM
Pointing a gun at a violent criminal is no guarantee he will comply with your demands that he surrender. He may just start shooting, and you will have made a bad situation worse.

If you shoot, remember that head shots are a better choice for one shot kills than COM.

Best bet is just hide in a corner somewhere and let him rob the place. Money is replaceable. Only take action if you have no other options open to you.

I might find as safe a place as I can and draw with the gun pointed down, so it is readily available, but not pointed at anyone.

I do not believe it is a good idea to point a gun at anyone unless you are going to shoot him.

JMHO.

ScottsGT
October 3, 2006, 09:35 AM
Kind of like when you see a deer in the woods. A quiet whistle to get him to look your way, then BOOM

Actually, you cannot predict how these things are going to work out. Life is not a Hollywood script.

Glockfan.45
October 3, 2006, 09:44 AM
my adrenaline and fears and all the rest will result in me screaming "I LIKE CHEESE! DROP YOUR HAT!" and then forgetting to flick the safety off, resulting in me throwing my gun at the bad guy superman style.

LMAO ^ :D

Anyhow I think I would just sit there and be a good witness so long as it looked like the cashier was cooperating, and nobody was going to get hurt. I have no intentions of dying nor killing to protect somebody elses money. If it looked like things were gonna get ugly then fire away. I have no problem with the idea of shooting a bad guy in the back, I fight to live, not count coup.

SJG26
October 3, 2006, 10:32 AM
of any kind?


" I do not believe it is a good idea to point a gun at anyone unless you are going to shoot him."


I AM pointing at them BECAUSE I AM going to stop them!
Immediate head shot------------------no warning!

RNB65
October 3, 2006, 10:43 AM
I know this is the generally accepted course of action but when I took my CCW class the officer teaching it said you are obligated to protect your life and the life of others in such a situation.

He's an idiot. I'm not obligated to protect anyone. Who I choose to protect is my own business. Since 99.999% of armed robberies end peacefully, suggesting that anyone is obligated to escalate it into an armed confrontation is sheer foolishness.

I suggest your post this man's name so folks will know one CCW instructor to avoid.

learn2shoot
October 3, 2006, 11:37 AM
I would think that pointing your gun at him is warning enough. But, if he does not see you, then it really isn't a warning. Others have said it but I am not willing to kill to protect money (mine or others).

However, I would never let go of the fact "I could have done something" if the BG get his money and simply kills the clerk just because he doesn't like his look or wants no witnesses.

Other thought - is no warning shots, I would not want to intentionally miss only to him someone else.

The best thing for his safety is to warn him, but at that point I am worried about the safety of everyone BUT him, but still do not want to kill someone. I think that there is no right answer if you yell you loose the advantage and might get killed, if you don't you just shot (killed?) another human in the back.

GungHo
October 3, 2006, 04:11 PM
If I shoot from behind it violates the old cowboy code of ethics.
Sorry, to me, it ain't about fair. It's about going home.

And, most "cowboys" who died from bullet wounds were ambushed. It wasn't a John Wayne movie.

ETA: I'm not advocating ambushing people. Nor am I saying I'm going to "ninja" someone if I get the opportunity. I'm just not a big advocate of a showdown at the 7-11.

Other thought - is no warning shots, I would not want to intentionally miss only to him someone else.
Depending on your jurisdiction, "warning shots" may get you in legal trouble. Specifically, don't do it in Texas.

DoubleTapDrew
October 3, 2006, 04:44 PM
He's an idiot. I'm not obligated to protect anyone. Who I choose to protect is my own business. Since 99.999% of armed robberies end peacefully, suggesting that anyone is obligated to escalate it into an armed confrontation is sheer foolishness.

I'm sorry I should have clarified that he meant a moral/ethical obligation, not a legal one. I know the cops aren't even obligated to protect fellow civilians. I'm not advocating that mentality, it's just what we were told.

DRMMR02
October 3, 2006, 04:48 PM
I think I would give a warning, but if he does anything but very slowly put the weapon down, he's getting at least 5 rounds center mass before I even blink. I don't fire to main or to injure. I'll give him a chance to be driven away in the back of a police car, if he refuses that opportunity by moving quickly or not complying, I am taking him out of the game permanently. I'm reminded of something I saw on Star Trek, a phrase said by the Jem Hadar "as of this moment we are already dead. we go into battle to reclaim our lives". The moment a criminal decides to threaten other lives, he is already dead. How he acts after being confronted determines whether he gets his life back.

glummer
October 3, 2006, 05:00 PM
Others have said it but I am not willing to kill to protect money (mine or others). It's not about protecting money; it's about protecting innocent life. When the BG pulls a gun, he is telling you that he is a murderer! He wantsyou to believe that. It is sheer lunacy to second guess him, and act as if he didn't really mean it.

That said, there is the question of whose life would be protected. I live in NY, so a great many unknown_to_me citizens are probably in favor of putting ME in jail for having a gun. Whose side is the clerk on? I would probably be very reluctant to put myself in legal jeopardy for a stranger in this benighted state.

Werewolf
October 3, 2006, 05:43 PM
Assuming the scenario described by the OP occurs in a state that recognizes the doctrine of stepping into the shoes of another no verbal warning is required and just might get the clerk or one's self shot.

In a step into another's shoes state assuming the clerk could use deadly force to protect himself so can you to protect the clerk.

That's all fine and dandy in theory...

geekWithA.45
October 3, 2006, 06:24 PM
A warning is only useful if it is likely to DEescalate an encounter, and even then, it ought to be used judiciously.

In the scenario indicated, the perp has already pulled a gun, and meets the means/proximity/jeopardy criteria. He is IMMINENTLY threatening someone with lethal force.

Would a warning cause a deescalation, or result in 10 lbs of pressure on the bad guy's trigger?

Surprise may be the only advantage that separates you and those you would defend from the grave.

David904
October 3, 2006, 06:30 PM
I suspect that the percentage of armed robberies ending peacefully is quite a bit off... But I have no statistics to back that up.

I hear too many stories of robberies where the thief decides that a witness is too much of an inconvenience to keep around so... *BOOM!*

If I think that my life or that of a store clerk's is in mortal danger (and I believe that I can make the shot) I'll shoot. No warnings or spoilers. It'll be for keeps and if it is from behind then so much the better. It increases the odds that I won't get shot.

GEM
October 3, 2006, 06:40 PM
Decide what outcome has the best value for you and act to achieve it.

1. Is it to minimize the risk of grievous bodily harm to yourself to yourself?
2. Is it to protect others at from that risk?
3. If it is to protect others at risk, are you willing to die or be seriously injured or suffer legal consequences for taking that risk?
4. Are you willing to take the risk to protect property knowing that negative consequences can ensue if you take the action to protect property? Do you think that the crime proceeding successfully will lower the risk of harm as compared to a shootout?
5. Do you think that stopping a property crime is so important to the generic social welfare of preventing crime that you are willing to risk yourself and others to protect property?

Thus, there is no answer that is correct. Any action decision has myriad factors contributing to it. Those who say they would certainly do XYZ are basically full of baloney as there is no certainty.

The best you can do is have skills and an appreciation of the action and its outcomes. You then act accordingly.

MY opinion on this one.

The property is irrelevant. You just want to protect life.

If I could escape or hide successfully - that sounds fine to me.

If I have to fight, I will. That decision is based on a threat to me. I honestly don't know if I want to save the clerk.

The long warning is perhaps not a good idea. I (BG) would shoot you while you are yapping away in commando lingo. You might try 'Don't Move '- don't make a long speech or repeatedly threaten force.

RNB65
October 3, 2006, 07:35 PM
Another thing to consider, before you decide to play hero and shoot it out with the BG, is this -- if the store clerk is behind the counter, the BG in front of the counter, and you're somewhere behind the BG, then the clerk is in or close to your field of fire. What happens if you accidently shoot and kill the clerk? Do you think her family is going to congratulate you for defending their loved on? No, they're going to serve you with a huge civil suit. Even if the courts ultimately rule in your favor, you're going to be up to your ears in legal fees defending yourself and are going to spend years paying them off.

Also, what happens if the BG doesn't do what you expect? Instead of turning to shoot it out with you, suppose he grabs the clerk and escalates the event into a hostage situation and threatens to kill the clerk unless you hand over your gun immediately. Then you're really up your ears in the brown stuff.

IMHO, the best approach is to avoid any escalation unless it becomes absolutely necessary.

scottw
October 3, 2006, 07:53 PM
In the state of Oklahoma you will go to jail if you shoot someone in the back. If their back is to you thay are not a threat. The only time you have the right to shoot is only if you or a member of your family is in danger. If the cleark is a member of your family that would be another matter. My question is why aren't these issues covered in the CCW class?

XavierBreath
October 3, 2006, 08:29 PM
In the state of Oklahoma you will go to jail if you shoot someone in the back. If their back is to you thay are not a threat. The only time you have the right to shoot is only if you or a member of your family is in danger. If the cleark is a member of your family that would be another matter. My question is why aren't these issues covered in the CCW class?
My question is why don't they teach Oklahoma law in Oklahoma CCW classes?

Know your relevant laws. I'm still trying to find the "shoot 'em in the back" clause in OK law. Can you find it?


Article II, § II‑26 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

§21-1289.25.

PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER (http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/get_statute?99/Title.21/21-1289.25.html)
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of
Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own
homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of
physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against
another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and
when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might
use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of
the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not
limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of
this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal
prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such
force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or
death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma
Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be
construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the
provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

Eyesac
October 3, 2006, 08:40 PM
Shoot with no warning. I don't see any reason to give any benefit of the doubt to a guy that pulls a gun for a couple hundred bucks. The state of Nevada won't hold it against you, in fact no one in Washoe county has ever been charged with a crime while using their CCW in defense. If a crook was ever pointing a gun at my head, I want someone to shoot with out warning... Sure wouldn't want anyone to go startling him with "warnings" with a muzzle at my precious mellon... Heck no. Shoot the sucker.

zoom6zoom
October 3, 2006, 09:08 PM
it violates the old cowboy code of ethics.

Never was such an animal. Except in the movies.

10-Ring
October 3, 2006, 09:58 PM
My first instinct is to shoot first out of concern for the safety of the clerk.

scottw
October 3, 2006, 10:23 PM
One member sent me a private message covering Oklahoma law and I sent him a message asking for him to post it here for everyone to read. In the class I took it was covered in great detail that this was a no-no. The other person had a great point and his class was conducted by an attorney. Mine was not.

RustyShackelford
October 3, 2006, 10:24 PM
I was thinking about this subject a few days ago. I would draw and fire at an armed robber or violent subject then yell drop your weapon or put your hands up etc.

In a real critical incident you may not have time to hold someone at gunpoint and clear the rest of the scene.

Rusty :cool:

Panthera Tigris
October 4, 2006, 12:00 AM
If I shoot from behind it violates the old cowboy code of ethics. Don't shoot em in the back.

There was no ethics code of this kind, especially not in the old West. People back then fought like street people fight today. Most guys in the old West gun fights were shot in the back if the shooter had the chance to do it. Billy the Kid for example only killed 5 or 6 people that they can prove, and at least two of those he shot in the back.

Guys hid, sneaked up on each other, etc and fought for best advantage. There is only one documented case of two gunfighters standing the street and facing each other down. That was the gunfight where James Butler Hickock killed his first man.

Wesker
October 4, 2006, 12:03 AM
Make this a poll. The options would be shoot to warn, injure, kill, or don't draw at all. I'd be interested to see where you all stand.

Pulling and NOT shooting would probably get you shot instead, and not killing the perp will enable him to turn around and sue the pants off you. Remember, you're not a LEO and don't have a ferocious union and the law on your side to back you up and pay your fees. You're Joe Barstool and would be thousands in debt from any Jon Q. Public appointed attorney.

I would shoot to kill, then probably blubber like a 10 year old girl.

Werewolf
October 4, 2006, 12:17 AM
One member sent me a private message covering Oklahoma law and I sent him a message asking for him to post it here for everyone to read. In the class I took it was covered in great detail that this was a no-no. The other person had a great point and his class was conducted by an attorney. Mine was not.Below is the text of the message I sent to Scottw which he asked that I post.

In ok don't shoot
In the state of Oklahoma you will go to jail if you shoot someone in the back. If their back is to you thay are not a threat. The only time you have the right to shoot is only if you or a member of your family is in danger. If the cleark is a member of your family that would be another matter. My question is why aren't these issues covered in the CCW class?
Sorry but you are wrong. The only time you'd be right is if the aggressor is fleeing and even then if the aggressor has a gun he could turn and shoot you at any time. In OK if an aggressor has the means, the opportunity and demonstrated intent you are justified in using lethal force to stop the threat. These issues are covered in CCW classes taught by attorneys (which isn't an OK requirement for being a CCW instructor).

Oklahoma recognizes the step into another's shoes doctrine. What that means is if you see someone being threatened with lethal force you can legally step into their shoes and use lethal force in their stead to protect them. The facing of the aggressor to you is irrelevant as is whether or not they are a family member.

BUT! Don't believe me. Check with an attorney - Doug Friesen in OKC would be a good choice. He's recognized as one of the best defense attorneys in OK and has a great deal of experience with self defense cases.

He also is the attorney who teaches the CCW class at H&H in OKC. Around 4 hours is spent on the legal aspects of self defense and the OK self defense act. Much time is spent covering the step into another's shoes doctrine. Doug's caveat concerning that doctrine is that you better be damned sure of who's shoes you are stepping into. If you make the wrong choice you're going to spend a lot of time in jail. He role plays various real life situations that have actually occured which most folks get wrong (he does that on purpose to teach people that appearances can indeed be deceiving).

Regarding an aggressor who's back is to you not being a threat: They most certainly can be and the law recognizes that.

Just as an example: I know guys who shoot in IPSC matches who - starting with their back to you - could draw, turn and shoot a person dead between the eyes so fast that most would be lucky even to get their weapon a 1/4 of the way unholstered before they were dead. They'd be banging on the Pearly Gates and St. Peter would be standing there rapidly thumbing through his arrival schedule finally telling you that you're early.

DerringerUser
October 4, 2006, 12:30 AM
No warning is the safest way to do it. I would go with that.

Eyesac
October 4, 2006, 01:23 AM
Like I said, if someone had a gun pointed at YOU what would you want someone to do? I would want them to shoot with no warning.. How about you?

Gaiudo
October 4, 2006, 02:04 AM
Very interesting range of thoughts on this, alot of which mirror my own thoughts swinging between shoot without warning and giving some kind of chance for the guy to drop it. I would like to make a poll out of it, but can't seem to figure it out. Any mod want to insert a poll with options for verbal warning, shoot to warn, shoot to injure, shoot to kill, no action. Or else someone can explain to me how. Thanks.

Nick

DoubleTapDrew
October 4, 2006, 02:19 AM
The scary thing is if you are in this situation there are all these things that have been said to consider and you have mabye 1 second to process all of it and make your decision!

DRMMR02
October 4, 2006, 02:24 AM
I'm revising my answer to "shoot first". The question "if you had a gun pointed at you, would you want someone else to warn or shoot" really puts it in perspective. You never know what will set people off. It may be some punk who will put his gun down and #### his pants at the sight of your gun, or it may be some addict who will just unload if startled. For the sake of the guy with the gun pointed at him, I'm not willing to take that chance. Even if I get caught up in a legal battle. Being sued IMO is better than watching an innocent die in front of me when I could have stopped it.

Panthera Tigris
October 4, 2006, 02:44 AM
I'd have to go with 'shoot first' also. Warning the b.g. might just make them shoot whoever they're aiming at.

cambeul41
October 4, 2006, 08:43 AM
but I think I would feel compelled to draw, and the sound of my pistol coming out of its Kydex holster would be all the warning the BG would need to cause him to flee or refocus his attention on me.

scottw
October 4, 2006, 11:08 AM
I am always amazed at the replies that one gets when he posts a question. There has been a lot of opinions on this subject of shooting someone in the back. I had stated that in OK you would go to jail for doing so and I should have said that you could go to jail. I rarely listen to defense lawyers as they will usually defend anyone and they do not have to do your jail time. Most of the time I try to quote from court cases or actual events and try to get my information from prosecuting attorneys. Having said that I will give 2 examples. I just read about a woman being tried for shooting someone in the back. She had shot an intruder in the front and as he turned she kept shooting and put a couple of shots in his back. It took an expert witness to get her off. Can't be too sure of all the details but think it was in American Hand gunner in the last 2 issues. Point is even with being shot face on the woman was on trial because of a bullet being in the back...... the key word is trial. There was a shooting in Tulsa OK in the last couple of months where a man was holding up a grocery store and a customer shot him. The robber ran and the shooter at this time is not being charged but it is still pending. If someone knows all the details please post them. Now I guess I will give my 2 cents worth. Unless I personally feel threatened I will let it slide. I am not a LEO and this situation falls in the good samaritan act which is full of grey areas. Grey area in the law can go either way. If things go good you are off the hook but if things go bad you will regret the day you ever pulled that gun. I do not want to be on trial with the chance of a couple of liberal gun haters in the jury and me being accused of shooting someone in the back. One last point, unless you have ever pulled a gun with the intention of shooting someone you do not know what you will do. You can talk about it all you want but until it happens you will never know. I have been in a draw for your life situation and I do know how I will react. Very calm through the entire event but dry heaved for 2 hours after it was all over. If you ever draw and shoot someone in the back and do not kill him and only wound him you could set off a gun battle that could go down in history. If an innocent bystander gets hit I promise you that you will go to jail and you will be in a fight for your life in more ways that than one and today with wrongful death sites you may never recover. You can be a hero and get your 15 minutes of fame if all goes well but what if? Yes someone stated that you only have a split second to run all this through your mind and no truer words were ever said. You need to weigh these things out way ahead of the situation so you at least will know how you you think you should react.

GEM
October 4, 2006, 12:25 PM
A thought - remember the secret backup! In this exact scenario in a FOF, I took down the robber as a mighty defender of society and was immediately engaged by a calm looking guy (guess who?).

He could have just shot me but challenged me to let his friend go and then a general gun fight ensued as I shot him, he shot at me, other CHLs shot at others.

Why did I engage the first crook - I was standing in line behind him and he just shot the clerk right out with no warning.

Thus, when fire starts - it doesn't mean the mighty CHL good guy wins.

As Greg Hamilton said - A major hauling of ass is a good thing.

2PAK
October 4, 2006, 07:28 PM
If you present your gun as a civilian, you're committed in more ways than one (read: the police, lawyers fees, drama and unwanted press). That being said, just because you have a permit and all sorts of supposed god given rights to do this or that - you're not an LEO. Consequently, if you present you better be shooting to end the threat. Otherwise, back off and dont present your pistol. Mine is only coming out if I am in fear of my (or someone elses) life by some two or four legged threat. If that's the case, I'm going to neutralize the threat within the parameters of the law. Your mileage my vary...

All of this movie warning shot crap is non-sense. Getting the drop on someone is non-sense as well. Most likely you'll be pissing in your pants if you get the drop on someone in the situation you described otherwise you wouldn't have posted this question. Either keep it holstered, assuming your life is not in immenient danger, or take care of the situation if you are in fear of your life. Going home in one piece with all of your money in the bank and not in lawyers fees is the name of the game.

DRMMR02
October 4, 2006, 08:37 PM
Speak for yourself. Quite a few people on THR and on this thread have law enforcement or military experiance. I doubt that many would be pissing their pants.

Bobhwry
October 4, 2006, 08:56 PM
These hypotheticals are worthless drivel!!:barf: :barf:

Grizzley Adams
October 4, 2006, 10:17 PM
personaly i would shoot him in the leg or some where non fatal,then tell him to drop it or i will fire again this time killing you,then i would hold him at gunpoint till the police showed up.then i would move on to the store owner and ask about a reward for saving his money and employees,:D

DoubleTapDrew
October 5, 2006, 02:12 AM
At that point he'd definitely start shooting at you (or the hostage if that's where the gun was pointed). If by some miracle he didn't, you could get some portion of the $100 or so they have in the till as a reward and put it towards the lawyers fees you'll need to defend yourself when the wounded perp sues you.

DRMMR02
October 5, 2006, 02:17 AM
Side question: How come no one ever counter-sues the perp?

GEM
October 5, 2006, 11:43 AM
Because his robbing of the convenience store probably means that your suit for his assets of $4.95 will not be taken on contingency by a big law firm. :D

Grizzley Adams
October 5, 2006, 05:26 PM
well i aint gonna shoot him dead unless i had no other option,i did this once in nashville a resturant got held up and i shot the perp right in the leg shattering the bone he was in so much pain he dropped the gun and i held him at gun point till the police arrived.that was the end of that and i got a 500 dollar reward from the owner.and zero lawsuits:neener: lol

crunker
October 5, 2006, 07:09 PM
I would tell him to drop the damn weapon, and if he didn't IMMEDIATELY comply, then I'd shoot him in the hand. If he manages to keep a grip on the weapon and starts to become an imminent threat to me or anyone else, then I'd have no choice but to shoot to kill.

If you enjoyed reading about "To shoot or to warn...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!