Warning Shots and Felonious Assault
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
aaaaa
Member
Ok then lets delete the post. Basically just relaying what was told to me that shows people do fire warning shots now and then. And this guy apparently not so smart but maybe back then they did not teach to never fire your gun for a noise maker. They are out there. I guess my post could come off as advocating for warning shots, and that was not my intent.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I’m there are probably times when a warning shot could be the best course of action. But I believe those times would be very few and far between.
tark
Member
I think that if you are confronted be an assailant who says "That gun ain't loaded!" then a warning shot into soft ground off to the side might be considered.
No.
Thus for a useless side fact. Way back when the Dutch police carried what was called a Dutch load in their revolvers. First was blank, then a cork bullet, then rubber bullet, then a tear gas round, then a real bullet. Not that I would recommend that but I have seen a gun store clerk discuss shotgun racking and then rubber buckshot.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Yeah, I kind of think one of the lessons here is that just because you call it a warning shot (after the start of other shooting) doesn't make it a warning shot.
Nope. That still would be treated by the police and prosecutor as use of deadly force when you were not in imminent danger of a deadly threat. Depending on their mood your charge could range from assault to attempted murder. Fail.
Warning shots are never a good thing, either tactically or legally, no matter what the former Vice President may have advised his wife, the doctor.
Archie
Member
You are correct about 'wrong'. From the information provided, he justifiably defended himself and then proceeded to keep firing without cause and endangered non threatening people. That was wrong of him. If not felonious assault, those shots would at least fall under the 'shots fired within the city limits' or something.
GE-Mini-Gun
Member
That is incredible to me! You're more worried about them knowing the law than their ability to handle a gun...
That is precisely what everyone should worry about. Knowing how to use your weapon isn't as important as knowing when you legally can and how to de-escalate so you don't have to..
I don't think he implied that.
But it is not a good idea for one to carry a gun, if one is under the impression that
- Warning shots are prudent
- It's okay to shoot at a fleeing suspect
- One may terminate trespass with deadly force
- Detaining a suspect with deadly force is permitted
- It is lawful to defend moveable property with deadly force
- One can successfully mount a legal defense of self defense after entering a confrontation and without trying to escape from it
- It is likely that shots fired after a deadly threat has passed will be deemed justified
theotherwaldo
Member
If you are not shooting at an attacker, why are you shooting?
Warning shots are stupid and dangerous, I don't care what Joe Biden says... .
Warning shots are stupid and dangerous, I don't care what Joe Biden says... .
bdickens
Member
Bears repeating.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I had to do a bit of research on this one.
First of all, I think we're pretty much on the same page here that this kind of a loadout would fall under the "stupid" category, and if used in semi-automatic pistols would further fall under the "guaranteed malfunction" category.
Second, the mention of "tear gas round" in this gun is somewhat of an anachronism, as tear gas used as a weapon of any kind came about in WWI, even though forms of tear gas were discovered in the late 1800s. Not to mention "tear gas bullets" themselves. I can't think of a more useless round in 9.4 mm. The effective range of such a round, if it really ever existed in the first place, would probably be within the powder burn range.
Also anachronistic is the use of rubber bullets...which came about in the 1970s in Britain.
In general, I pretty much find this to be apocryphal in nature.
But it IS a pretty cool one that I haven't heard before! Thanks for posting it!
Most people would be better served keeping their mouths shut about such serious legal matters until they actually go through the trouble to READ and UNDERSTAND the various laws AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY WRITTEN instead of going off hearsay and "how things ought to be".
Homicides and assaults are probably the top two on the list of worst criminal acts in society. It behooves people to understand what ACTUALLY constitutes a "homicide" and an "assault", which necessarily includes all the different varieties of acts which may fall under each.
"Homicide", for instance, is not necessarily "murder". It's the killing of a human being by another human being. A homicide might be murder, it might be manslaughter, it might be justifiable self-defense, etc. But because it's the killing of a human being by another, it's a very serious act of ultimate finality from which there is no recovery.
Assault likewise has many facets. Simply laying hands on another can be considered assault. It doesn't have to be a beating with an axe handle, rape, punch, or a slap in the face. There can be no actual contact involved at all, in fact. There can be horrible maiming involved...or no physical injury at all. Not understanding this is folly.
Therefore, "hearsay" and "baseless beliefs" have no place with respect to knowing and understanding the laws the use of deadly force.
There are many ways to argue a case in court. But by far, the BEST way is to show how your acts were in accordance with the laws AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. And even so, the outcome is not guaranteed to be certain. It WILL, however, very likely be expensive whichever way the outcome goes.
All that said...I ain't no lawyer. I don't aspire to be one, either. But I DO have a vested interest in understanding how the laws are actually applied with respect to the use of deadly force.
scaatylobo
Member
I believe that if your that stupid as to carry and not know fully what is legal and what is ILLEGAL.
Your almost on par with the illegal carriers that dont care how or when to use that heater.
My opinion,I own it and am happy with it.
Just as I dislike [ hate ? ] those who carry and could not hit anything they intended to.
And yes, as a retired LEO firearms instructor = that includes cops.
Especially cops,but all who carry too.
Retired - the description I posted was in one of those big old revolver color picture books you get in the remainder sections of Barnes and Noble. They were discussing the 9.4 revolver but I don't know the veracity of the book. It's long gone.
As far as carrying blanks in police guns, here's a story about S. Korean using them - https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2022/06/22/police-revolvers-south-korea/
As far as carrying blanks in police guns, here's a story about S. Korean using them - https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2022/06/22/police-revolvers-south-korea/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
