bad guys and verbals?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mr_dove

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
645
Location
Denver
The recent thread about the non-compliant intruder got me to thinking about verbally addressing a threat (talking, warning, etc).

If I ever find myself in a real self defense situation against someone who is truly a threat to me and my family I do not intend to give a warning. If someone threatens me with a deadly weapon it never occured to me to give them a chance to flee/drop thier weapon/ lay down/etc.

What is the reason to verbally address an attacker at any point?

Keep in mind that I'm thinking of situations where the attacker is very clearly a threat such a person who just kicked in my front door.
 
The textbook for the NRA course "Personal Protection In the Home" suggests verbal warnings, but in a specific situation.

The situation is this.

You have retreated to your safe room and set up your "kill zone."

You (or your spouse) are calling 9-1-1, and you yell at the intruder "Go Away! I have a GUN!."

If the intruder insists on coming toward your safe room, and entering your "kill zone" you shoot.

The thought is that if the intruder is just after your TV, either the intruder will leave, or stay away from the safe room and just take the TV.

Also, the thought is you retreat to the safe room, and do NOT go looking for the intruder in the house. Let the intruder come to your kill zone, but yell and holler so maybe you won't have to shoot the SOB.

But like any other tactic, "verbal warnings" do not work in all circumstances.

There's a CCW holder in the Pacific Northwest who is now paralyzed from the waist down because he gave a verbal warning when he should have been shooting.

I can think of all sorts of situations where I would never issue a verbal warning.

I can think of all sorts of situations where I would issue all kinds of verbal warnings.

Local TV reported a self-defense shooting in Logan County, AR, that involved a whole lot of verbal warnings, but to no avail.

No link yet, but I will post it as soon as it's up on the TV station's web site.

hillbilly
 
I think it breaks down pretty easily, but of course there are gray areas in everything.

I think if the attack is spontaneous, such as you are suddenly jumped by a mugger with a knife, don't waste your time with a warning. Defend yourself. Course that might mean you were too late getting your weapon out to begin with.

As far as a house intrusion, Id say if you know everyone in your house is safe, yell up a storm, and warn them so many times they leave just to make you stop warning them. If they don't listen, the warning didn't work. Defend yourself.

But there's also the possibility that everyone in your house is NOT safe. Maybe you have kids sleeping in different rooms. In that case, if they were my kids with an intruder in the house, the wife can call 911 while I go get my kids. If I see the intruder while I'm going to get my kids, I'd hold him at gunpoint and give him a verbal warning. The kids are safe as long as the intruder is in front of the weapon and the kids are behind it. Tell him to freeze, put his hands where you can see them. If he makes an offensive move, defend yourself.

House clearing is extremely dangerous, but you have to know what you'll put yourself on the line for.
 
STOP!

STOP or i will shoot!

*bang* warning shot...

STOP there or i will f**kin shoot you for real!

BG closes in, *bang bang bang*
 
You can do the "freeze" BANG , or you can do the BANG "freeze". The second is safer for you. One friend later found why the armed BG didn't respond to commands - high level of alcohol and drugs !!
 
I would not fire a warning shot, because if you are not shooting to kill then you should not fire at all. Same with the idea of shooting to wound--if you're justified in using deadly force, use it. If you're not justified, then it's excessive force.

On the idea of a verbal warning, I would agree that it depends on the situation. However, if I had a family (which I do not yet) I would not feel comfortable holding a single intruder at gun point--this idea assumes there is only one intruder. I may be young, but it didn't take me long to understand that if you're going to assume, make the safe assumption. The safe assumption in home invasion would be that there are multiple armed intruders until you find out otherwise.

For now, since I have no one else to protect, I would call 9-1-1, hunker down behind cover within a locked room, let them take whatever they want and be ready to fire if they breech the room I am in.
 
"if you are not shooting to kill then you should not fire at all"
=============================================

A fine point of distinction, TeachMe- NOT "shooting to kill"- shooting to STOP. Your intent is to stop the threat, period.

Stay safe,

lpl/nc
 
The only reason one would want to verbally address an intruder instead of just shooting is so that one would not have to go through all the legal proceedings because of shooting someone. If the person surrenders their weapon, then the police can come and you are not responsible for a death. The thing that stinks is that even if you are 100% justified in shooting an intruder in your house, you will still be sued and/or arrested. This is the same as when a policeman shoots a suspect. You just need to hope that you get a reasonable judge and/or jury that sees the light and rules in your favor if you do shoot an intruder. Oops, I ranted a little bit.
 
Unfortunately I work too hard to acquire the few things I have, so if someone is in my house I will not lock myself in a room, I will defend my property without warning! The warning would have been the Locked House, if a BG decides to ignore that warning, so be it.

Luckily in NY I don't need to retreat in my own house.
 
Good question Mr._dove.

The idea isn't to give a "warning", but to be giving orders.

You should be giving short forceful commands to drive the person out of your house or to follow your commands.


"GET OUT!"

"GET OUT! I'VE CALLED THE POLICE! I'VE GOT A GUN!"

"PUT THE GUN DOWN! GET OUT! PUT THE GUN DOWN! GET OUT!"

"PUT THE KNIFE DOWN! GET OUT!"

They should be short, loud and clearly spoken in a commanding voice. You do this if and only if the situation warrants it, not if you are under attack. The first 2 sets of commands are easily remembered and should be practiced. The second 2 are for where a weapon is suspected/out in the open, but the weapon is not brought to bear. Any unexpected stranger you find in your house is a threat, but they may not attack you when presented with the choice of fleeing or getting shot. If they choose to get shot by not believing you and advancing to attack you've done everything reasonable to get them to get out.

Firing a warning shot is unsafe and should never be done.

This is not retreating or surrendering or warning. It is a tool that can help you survive that you should spend some time training to.
 
Last edited:
*bang* warning shot...

Never fire a warning shot. It is still use of deadly force, and if you weren't shooting to stop, you shouldn't be shooting. Combine that with the fact that Murphy will do his best to put that warning shot into an innocent person, and it becomes a dangerous mistake for all involved.

The warnings should be verbal if time and circumstances allow for a warning at all. The only shots should be shots to stop the threat that the warning (if any) failed to stop.
 
In my state the statutes require that I demand that the unlawful intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw. If he fails to do so I can take other appropriate action.

The laws in YOUR state may differ.

As LFI-1 teaches, it is not uncommon for an assailant to pause a moment while he gathers up the strength and willpower to kill you.

The people I know who shot an unlawful intruder in their house were NOT sued or arrested.
 
How is the intruder supposed to hear....

your verbal warnings over the roar of the 12 gauge? After all, I told him to plug his ears first.........chris3
 
Unfortunately I work too hard to acquire the few things I have, so if someone is in my house I will not lock myself in a room, I will defend my property without warning! The warning would have been the Locked House, if a BG decides to ignore that warning, so be it.

Looking at this strictly from a financial point of view, there is little doubt in my mind that the clean-up costs associated with a shooting, the days lost from work and the legal expenses you will incur will far outweigh what a thief can haul off before the cops get there.

Shooting someone is very expensive.
 
Unfortunately I work too hard to acquire the few things I have, so if someone is in my house I will not lock myself in a room, I will defend my property without warning! The warning would have been the Locked House, if a BG decides to ignore that warning, so be it.

Luckily in NY I don't need to retreat in my own house.

Joe7cri,

Where in New York do you live? I was under the impression that New York State Law included the retreat clause. Do you have a cite for No Retreat?

Sincerely,

Prof. A. Wickwire
 
Lee Lapin:

Thank you for pointing out the distinction between shooting to stop and shooting to kill. Shooting to stop the threat would be the correct mentality. I will try to think about my phrasing a little more before I submit the reply next time :).
 
Prof -see the NY Penal Code


NY Penal Law 35.15 (2a) - the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor ........
 
You do this if and only if the situation warrants it, not if you are under attack. The first 2 sets of commands are easily remembered and should be practiced. The second 2 are for where a weapon is suspected/out in the open, but the weapon is not brought to bear.
:what:

Anyone who has forcibly broken into my home and is displaying a weapon will be shot on sight. (and you can quote me on that at the trial, if there is one)

I consider armed person(s) breaking into my home as being "under attack" :rolleyes:


Any verbal commands to an apparently unarmed intruder would not be suitable for this forum, but would include a somewhat less than polite request to leave immediately.;)
 
TallPine,

Guy with gun= immediate deadly threat.

Guy with knife= immediate deadly threat if within 30 feet.

Guy with big screw driver= possible deadly threat within 30 feet or some mook that just used it to break in.

It all depends upon the situation. The problems drive the solutions.
 
If you shoot someone, you will pay.

You will pay emotionally.

Even if the shooting is completely totally justified, you will second-guess yourself and doubt yourself and feel sick about it. You will lose sleep. You will probably even lose friends.

At least you will be alive to feel all of those negative emotions, however.

Chances are good you will be sued by the family of the person you shot.

Even if they don't sue you, there are all sorts of ways for them to make your life unpleasant, some of them legal, some of them not legal.

Even the most awful, slimy, dirtbag is somebody's son, somebody's brother, somebody's father, somebody's uncle.

Jeffrey Dahmer's parents were both very upset the day their cannibal serial killer son was beaten to death in prison with a toilet plunger handle.

If you can avoid shooting somebody, it's best to avoid it.

However, there are situations where the bad guy won't allow you to avoid it.

Here's the link to the story I talked about earlier in this thread.

Lots of verbal warnings, but the homeowner still had to shoot. Ugly, ugly, ugly.


http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2006/06/12/week_in_review/news/monday/news06.txt


Magazine Shooting Investigated

By Dug Begley

TIMES RECORD • [email protected]

After what the local sheriff called “an extremely tragic and unfortunate incident,” a 22-year-old Magazine man died during a confrontation with a Logan County homeowner.

Sheriff Mark Lambird said the incident is still under investigation, as authorities wait on a toxicology report on Casey Steele Weber following the shooting early Saturday morning.

“We’ll have more after we get the reports and finish our investigation,” Lambird said Sunday evening.

Right now, Lambird said what police do know is that Weber approached a home in the 200 block of Diamond Lane, about three miles northeast of Magazine, and started demanding to see a man he identified by first name.

“Nobody by that name lives there or around there,” Lambird said.

Through a door of the residence, the homeowner, who police have not identified, told Weber no one by that name lived there, but Weber would not go away, police said.

“He went to the side of the house and started beating on a window to the man’s daughter’s room,” Lambird said.

The man’s daughter and her cousin, both girls between the ages of 9 and 12, were awakened, so the homeowner went outside the home and tried to tell Weber to leave.

“He told him no one lived there by that name and to go away, and he had a gun,” Lambird said.

The homeowner’s wife hid the girls in a bathroom and was preparing to call 911 when Weber broke a window of the house with a bat he found outside and tried to enter, Lambird said.

“The homeowner was scared and fired a single shot with a shotgun,” Lambird said. “He thought he missed him.”

He didn’t, and Weber fell back outside the home. When police and EMS arrived, Weber was already dead from a shotgun wound to the left chest.

Logan County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Tatum II and a deputy prosecutor were also called to the scene, Lambird said.

Tentatively, Lambird said the incident looks like a justified shooting.

“But we’ll make a determination and turn it over to the prosecutor,” he said. “But it was a tragic occurrence.”

Lambird said the homeowner is “having some problems dealing with it.”

“They were scared out of their wits,” he said of the homeowner and his family.

Officials are still piecing together why Weber came to the home, Lambird added.
 
Never fire a warning shot. It is still use of deadly force, and if you weren't shooting to stop, you shouldn't be shooting. Combine that with the fact that Murphy will do his best to put that warning shot into an innocent person, and it becomes a dangerous mistake for all involved.

The warnings should be verbal if time and circumstances allow for a warning at all. The only shots should be shots to stop the threat that the warning (if any) failed to stop.

Thats the rules of engagment in singapore armed forces... They never really think where the bullet's gona land....
 
If I ever find myself in a real self defense situation against someone who is truly a threat to me and my family I do not intend to give a warning. If someone threatens me with a deadly weapon it never occured to me to give them a chance to flee/drop thier weapon/ lay down/etc.

What is the reason to verbally address an attacker at any point?

Liability. Imagine you have to shoot someone, and you don't say a word. A person around the corner didn't see it, but heard gunshot. This person is going to be a witness against you in court.

Same scenario, but you use verbal commands and warnings. "Drop the weapon or I'll shoot! Drop the weapon! (Boom) Drop the weapon! (Boom) Drop the weapon or I'll shot again (Boom).... etc." By doing this, you are advertising 1) that something is going on and you're the victim, 2) that the person has a weapon or you believe they have a weapon, and 3) that they are not complying with you. It looks much better in court.
 
Liability. Imagine you have to shoot someone, and you don't say a word. A person around the corner didn't see it, but heard gunshot. This person is going to be a witness against you in court.

Maybe, maybe not. As with everything, it depends on the circumstances. If you issue a verbal command simultaneous with the shot (and that's easy to do as you react verbally and physically at the same time, much like cursing a driver at the same time you swerve to avoid them), you might be accused of issuing a "fake" verbal: "You told him to stop but shot him before he could comply." At the same time, if you are behind an intruder in your home and order him to halt, you'd better not shoot him when he naturally spins around as humans are known to do when startled from behind.

As with everything, what happens later will depend on your ability to articulate why you did what you did at the moment the shooting occurred. Even if it's just "I was scared out of my gourd and didn't have time to say 'stop' before I acted to save my own life." That's enough to explain away your verbal silence if the facts support it as a good shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top