Warning shots?

NASCAR_MAN · Jan 7, 2012

I can think of a few very obscure and highly unlikely cases where I might be inclined to fire a warning shot. Nevertheless, I figure if worst comes to worst, then I must make it a point to always ask myself, "...am I trying to protect myself, or defend my pride, or make a point to the "bad guys"?". I have resigned to to merely defend myself and let Law Enforcement do the rest. I figure if I can come out of a "Gun Situation" without a scratch and without incurring tremendous legal bills, then I am a winner.

Am I so wrong?

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

Let someone maim or kill you. It doesn't harm me.

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I'm beginnng to get a sense of the depths of your compassion. Your dismissiveness of your attacker's life has now extended to dismissiveness of the life someone who simply disagrees with you.

You, sir, are a fine ambassador and example for armed defenders.

JRH6856 · Jan 7, 2012

TexasRifleman said:
Absolutely. I don't think anyone would disagree with that either. The discussion though is warning shots, and whether or not those are "owed" to someone.

The statement that Deanimator made about not owing any free reign to a criminal who is a threat to his life is fair, and I don't find any reason to disagree with it.

If one chooses to employ a warning shot that's fine, but to do it out of some sense that you owe the bad guy as many chances as possible just seems like a good way to get killed. If your state law does not require it, then things like warning shots serve only (in my opinion) to place the law abiding in more danger than they are in already. So why do it?

There is some nostalgia in a lot of these conversations, of the Lone Ranger giving the bad guys a way out, or the A-Team never actually shooting anyone. But is that valid for the real world? I just don't see it. I don't see how I owe the bad guy any extra chances when he's already made a decision to try to take my life.

Actually, I think that there are people who see CCW permits as a sort of "license to kill" when they believe it is legal to do so. Not all, not most, and maybe not a significant number, but some. But that is best left to another thread.

What is germane to this thread is that under Texas law at least, you are responsible, under both criminal and civil law, for injury to a third party. Firing a warning shot increased that risk. Texas law allows the threat of deadly force to be used as a deterrent without that threat being a use of deadly force. But firing a warning shot, while not specifically so defined, is probably going to be seen as use.

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

I think that there are people who see CCW permits as a sort of "license to kill" when they believe it is legal to do so.

And is there any support in this thread for such a belief?

Deanimator · Jan 7, 2012

I'm beginnng to get a sense of the depths of your compassion.

I don't have any "compassion" for someone trying to maim or murder me. I don't make any apologies for that, nor do I see any reason to.

I'm treating you as an adult with the right to let somebody harm them if that's what you choose. I certainly have no more right to MAKE you defend yourself than an assailant does to attack you.

I also have the right to view your position as foolish and to say so.

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

I'm treating you as an adult with the right to let somebody harm them if that's what you choose. I certainly have no more right to MAKE you defend yourself than an assailant does to attack you.

I have (again) never said or implied that I will "let" somebody harm me. I have already explained that, in the case I described, firing a warning shot into a berm IS using deadly force to end my assailant's attack.

I also have the right to view your position as foolish and to say so.

We all have, for example, the right to insult another person. But exercising such a right is not the same as doing what is right. Of course, not everyone will care about that.

Sam1911 · Jan 7, 2012

Again you take the high road as an armed citizen and attempt to avoid all confrontation. But if someone takes it on themselves to do so you can't simply shoot them because its the most convenient solution for you. Or at least not HERE in Ar you can't. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you can use a gun to solve all your problems

But, certainly, this is a mighty tricky situation to be in, if you are willing to engage in fisticuffs rather than draw. If you engage in a fight, or someone else engages you in a fight, it IS a gunfight -- because you have a gun. It is grossly unreasonable -- nearly suicidal -- to allow yourself to be grappled with, incapacitated, as you will be disarmed.

A punch or kick can kill. It happens every year. Assaulting someone is a felony. Even just a punch or two. Allowing your antagonist to land a punch or two very well may be the last decision you get to make.

Know the law, indeed, do almost anything to avoid a physical conflict. But do not take a punch or a kick because you think the law doesn't allow you to prevent it.

snubbies · Jan 7, 2012

Informative

Lets change the facts slightly: Perp breaks into my house, I am upstairs in bed with my gun. They don't come up stairs, I go down stairs If I shoot him where do I stand with the law.

JRH6856 · Jan 7, 2012

I think that there are people who see CCW permits as a sort of "license to kill" when they believe it is legal to do so.

Click to expand...

And is there any support in this thread for such a belief?

Loosed Horse, I was responding to a statement by Texas Rifleman to the effect that everyone would agree that avoiding the use of deadly force was desirable when possible. I don't believe everyone would agree. I do have reasons for that belief.

I did say that is a subject best left to another thread. Therefore I will not discuss it any further in this one.

JRH6856 · Jan 7, 2012

Lets change the facts slightly: Perp breaks into my house, I am upstairs in bed with my gun. They don't come up stairs, I go down stairs If I shoot him where do I stand with the law?

It depends on what state you are in when this occurs.

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

They don't come up stairs, I go down stairs If I shoot him where do I stand with the law.If I shoot him where do I stand with the law.

Refreshing.

I must first point out (with apology, as this is "Legal", not STT) that this is a tactical blunder: you may not survive to find out the legality.

I assume you shoot because you feel yourself under lethal threat, not because you have a firm policy of shooting tresspassers. IANAL, but I think most jurors would have a hard time convicting someone for protecting his home.

Therefore I will not discuss it any further in this one.

I apologize if I misstepped.

TexasRifleman · Jan 7, 2012

Let's say you're right. That's worse than shooting someone I knew in my heart I didn't have to?

That's a personal decision, and it also assumes you will know for sure. That's unlikely, there will always be some question. But, if it bankrupts your family or puts you in prison, or gets you killed because you didn't react fast enough trying to give that very last inch of benefit to the bad guy.... you have to ask if that risk is worth it.

No one else can answer that, everyone has to do that on their own. Castle Doctrine states, however, are of the opinion generally that (for all practical purposes) a bad guy forfeits his right to life upon entering a home illegally. It's all on him at that point and he is not owed any extraordinary care. If one makes a moral decision to give him every chance that's fine, but experts in this field do not advise it under pretty much any circumstance and the reasons for that should not be ignored in my opinion.

Deanimator · Jan 7, 2012

We all have, for example, the right to insult another person. But exercising such a right is not the same as doing what is right. Of course, not everyone will care about that.

So then you view failure to endorse your positions as an "insult"?

Apparently, whatever other rights I might possess, disagreeing with your opinions isn't one of them...

Deanimator · Jan 7, 2012

That's a personal decision, and it also assumes you will know for sure. That's unlikely, there will always be some question. But, if it bankrupts your family or puts you in prison, or gets you killed because you didn't react fast enough trying to give that very last inch of benefit to the bad guy.... you have to ask if that risk is worth it.

Certainty is something you're not entitled to.

As I said previously, I've seen people claim that you NEVER have the right to use deadly force because you NEVER know if somebody is going to kill you until AFTER they do. That's not a position to which either of us subscribes.

My position is that you shoot when you reasonably believe that you need to, not that you endanger yourself or others to achieve an unachievable 100% certainty, or that you give deference to someone animated by deadly malice who would NEVER return the favor. I believe that you hold a similar position.

The simple truth is that when you exert as much effort not to harm somebody whom a reasonable person would believe means you great bodily harm or death, as they exert to maim or kill you, you're assisting them in their efforts. I'm not EVER going to HELP somebody slay me.

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

it also assumes you will know for sure. That's unlikely,

Never been there, hope I never am; but if I ever line up my sights on someone and squeeze the trigger, I hope mightily that I did it because I was sure I had to. If not, it will be tough to live with...and tough to convince a jury I thought I did right.

So then you view failure to endorse your positions as an "insult"?

No. I used "insult" as an example of behavior that one has a right to do, but may still not be right to do.

Let's see: you've misrepresented my position on a warning shot more than once. Now, you've misrepresented my position on your rights. Assuming I do NOT wish to exercise my right to insult, is it best to assume those repeated misrepresentations are intentional, or unintentional, I wonder.

Deanimator · Jan 7, 2012

Let's see: you've misrepresented my position on a warning shot more than once.

Let's see: you've edited my post to create an erroneous impression of my position and been called on it by someone other than myself...

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

Let's see: you've edited my post to create an erroneous impression of my position

No, I quoted a portion of your post for efficiency. Another poster felt it gave an incorrect impression; I disagree (as the original post is obvious and available to all).

However, as he did not (to my mind) imply bad intent--just bad result--I considered it impolite to type my disagreement; better to just accept the comment as the well meant, constructive criticism it obviously was.

You, in contrast, clearly state that my purpose was to mislead. Well, by doing so, you make YOUR purpose (and your methods) clear.

But then, so what? They were quite clear before. Oh...perhaps you have something on topic to say, for a change?

I've seen people claim that you NEVER have the right to use deadly force because you NEVER know if somebody is going to kill you until AFTER they do.

You seem to have also encountered people who feel you should never shoot someone...because of Hiroshima, I think it was?

Such interesting people you run into.

Deanimator · Jan 7, 2012

I disagree

...thereby "insulting" him...

Loosedhorse · Jan 7, 2012

...thereby "insulting" him...

He sent you a PM, perhaps, and asked you to tell me he was insulted?

But at least you have answered my question: no, you have nothing on topic to contribute.

Sam1911 · Jan 7, 2012

<Sigh.>

Knock it off.

Seems both possible points of view have had a chance to be expressed. Let the reader make up his/her mind.

Warning shots?

member

member

Member

member

Member

member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

member

Moderator Emeritus

Similar threads