What do we think of this man's actions?

[martialartsblackbelt]

he did call 911

 

[ColdDeadHand]

Kleanbore,
All good points.
Sounds like he jumped the gun in a big way. And I agree warning shots are always a bad idea. Legally, it shows that you weren't really in fear for your life because you shot in the air, not at your supposed attacker.

I think the thing to do on his part would have been to shut up and sit inside his house. Wait for someone to try to break in and shoot them. The article really makes it sound like they guy just got scared and ran out of his house with a gun. Stupid move, and he's lucky no bystanders were hurt or killed by a stray round bouncing out of his grass.

Still, time to leave NY and go someplace where average citizens can carry a pistol. I don't live in the best area of my town, but not the worst either. But you don't see a lot of mob violence around here. In NY the crooks have no reason to fear the average citizen. Law abiding people can't carry guns. I like Missouri because the BGs are learning there's a good chance of getting shot if you do bad things around here. That's the way it's supposed to be, and that's what's wrong with NY and several other places in America.

 

[FLAvalanche]

I honestly believe there is a big difference between one person standing on your lawn and verbally threatening you and 20 known gang members standing on your lawn verbally threatening you.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I honestly believe there is a big difference between one person standing on your lawn and verbally threatening you and 20 known gang members standing on your lawn verbally threatening you.

This lady was only dealing with one threat, who gained entry through an unusual manner. She was on the phone with 911, gave verbal commands, fired a warning shot, and then flat out killed the aggressor. I don't think any body in the legal process here is going to have any legal issue with the notion of this warning shot.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091110dnmetobsession.2708de8.html

I am still not a fan of warning shots, though they sometimes work. Sometimes they do no good what-so-ever.

 

[bpsig]

He did what he had to do. Could have been better and most definately worse.
But like everything in this talking head cable tv world always going to be a second guess by someone not there. He was and lived if he learned something good. Leason here for all others is that you can't plan for everything. A great super accurate bolt gun dosen;t do well against 20 + at close range. semi auto standard capacity rules if have to go loud. But use head first. As to being arrested can't say would have let myself. Different ideas about my life verses some ordinance. But then NO way would I or am I going to visit some place that is so over run with insane laws or rampant ideas about pc.
Same argument I have with people at work when time comes to drop hammer or not go home well sucks to be them . An if at my home then I screwed up bad . Since have a 2 hour response time from local le.

 

[Dogbone]

I think it's a sad testimony to how backwards some thinking is today.

 

[Kleanbore]

The man shouldn't be charged with anything. He should be given a nobel peace prize. He actually did something to help women and children.

Seems as if we disagree. If someone in my neighborhood were to cut loose with a volley of 7.62X39 rounds here in town without making sure of his backstop when his life didn't depend on it, I would want him arrested and his gun taken away.

I live in a suburban area with lots that average around sixty five to one hundred feet wide and around one hundred and fifty feet deep. I've looked at satellite images, and it is amazing how many houses are in the line of fire as one moves around the compass. I've taken that into account in defense planning; I plan to fire only aimed shots, and not with something that fires jacketed spitzer bullets with three times the muzzle energy of a .357 Magnum.

The defendant here was firing in Long Island when it was not immediately necessary to do so to defend anyone from anything. That act was very dangerous and most certainly unlawful to start with, for good reason.

All he accomplished was getting himself arrested and charged with criminal offenses. How that saves women and children, I do not know, but if he didn't want to endanger women and children, he shouldn't have fired the gun.

The really fortunate thing about it is that he didn't hit anyone.

 

[Sam1911]

All he accomplished was getting himself arrested and charged with criminal offenses. How that saves women and children, I do not know, but if he didn't want to endanger women and children, he shouldn't have fired the gun.

Amen.

I wonder how secure his wife and kids are feeling with him sitting in jail? Wonder how "deterred" those gang members (or whoever they were) feel about paying them a little visit while the "hero" is warming a cell bench? (Or, possibly worse, him out on bail with his firearms in police custody.)

Like many other threads we see here, it is painful to accuse a guy who tried to stand up for himself and his family. But the only good we can do here is to learn from his choices, good and bad, and try to educate ourselves based on the results and potential results of his choices.

In this case, much was done wrong, some things could have gone FAR worse, and unfortunately the fallout is not over -- several things may yet go from bad to worse for him and his loved ones.

He was in a tough situation with few possible positive outcomes. The choice he did make was unfortunate.

 

[Sam1911]

I don't know what i would have done.

That's the big issue we all face with a situation like this. What would we do? What SHOULD one do? If we can keep our head and make the wisest possible choices -- take only those actions most likely to keep us and our loved ones alive tonight, our neighbors safe and alive, ourselves out of jail, and ourselves and our loved ones alive tomorrow and the next day as well -- what's the narrow path we must walk through the minefield which has just presented itself?

25 men rushed onto his property after threats were made on his family's lives, so he fired 4 "warning" shots into the dirt.

Well...that's the story so far. Seems a little "hollywood" but it's all we have to go on.

If he would have presented the rifle without firing any shots, some of the gangsters may not have gotten the message.

If you "present" a firearm, you MUST be LEGAL, READY, and WILLING to shoot. If you can't (or won't) shoot to stop RIGHT NOW (which may include killing) then you don't present the weapon.

The better option would be to retreat inside, get yourself and your loved ones to a position of cover, and call the police. Facing 25+ to 1 out in the open, even with an AK, is a suicidal position. (One of the 25 ... or was it number 26? ... that you didn't notice caps you in the back of the head and then the group steps over your corpse to go help themselves to your home and loved ones.)

Getting to a back room with a limited path of approach -- forcing the bad guys to decide if they need to come to you or simply to finish their business and move on -- and making them approach from a controlled "fatal funnel" path which you can dominate with your weapon -- tilts the odds much more strongly in your favor. In fact, it stacks the deck for you both tactically and LEGALLY.

If they're invading your home, assaulting your last defensive position, you generally AREN'T going to be charged with a crime. Obviously the same can't be said when you're standing in the middle of your lawn firing your weapon at no threatening target.

If he were to just immediately engage the people, there would be a very high risk of collateral damage to neighborhood residents, more so than just firing into the ground.

Perhaps, but if he needs to shoot, he needs to shoot A THREAT, and NOW. If he doesn't have A THREAT that needs to be stopped NOW, then he should not shoot. If they're still outside on the lawn shouting stuff (not charging him or charging down his hallway with weapons drawn) then he doesn't need to shoot A THREAT -- which is evident by the fact that he, in fact, DIDN'T.

Since there wasn't an immediate threat, with the means and opportunity to injure him right then -- sufficient that he would decide to shoot THAT THREAT (instead of the ground) -- then firing his weapon was not lawful.

Again, keeping your head and remembering and acting on these things in the awful moment of need will probably be very difficult. We all hope and pray we never face that moment. But learning from this guy's mistakes may help us if ever that day comes.

 

[Kleanbore]

...so he fired 4 "warning" shots into the dirt.

It has also been reported that he fired into the air, but let's look beyond that for a moment,

After more than half a century of shooting, I recently learned something new that I had never even considered: bullets fired into the ground often come back out.

At my benchrest club, bullets that have impacted the ground before going into the berm (backstop) have been known to reemerge and fly past the boundaries of the club's property, endangering neighbors.

Just a little tidbit.

Sam1911 has properly discussed the wisdom of not going outside and the legality of presenting the weapon and firing it.

Let's also consider the risk to other citizens.

There are civil and criminal liabilities involved.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you "present" a firearm, you MUST be LEGAL, READY, and WILLING to shoot.

Seems like the guy met all these criteria just fine. He was legal in being on his own property with a firearm. He was obviously ready and willing to shoot.

If you can't (or won't) shoot to stop RIGHT NOW (which may include killing) then you don't present the weapon.

Okay, so what about Kleck's millions of times a year firearms are successfully used to stop crime without a shot being fired?

Warning shots as in this case are an attempt to shoot to stop, the difference being that the attempt is psychological and not physiological. Then again, when it comes to handguns, shooting to stop is often psychological as well. His efforts did appear to work just fine at producing the desired stop.

The better option would be to retreat inside, get yourself and your loved ones to a position of cover, and call the police.

Absolutely. Then again, maybe there isn't much in the way of cover in your hold that will actually protect you and your loved one. Of course, most folks don't know the difference between cover and concealment.

Facing 25+ to 1 out in the open, even with an AK, is a suicidal position.

Not necessarily and certainly not in this case. It is far from a safe position to be in, but it is a position from which a person or group can stop a numerically superior group. Given that apparently nobody in the group wanted suffer being shot, the whole group was stopped. No doubt that was partially because the group was more of a mob as to being an organized, capable, and goal-oriented entity. Against the latter, his position would have been very bad indeed.

Of course 911 should be called. With a 10-15 minute response time for "crimes in proress," folks will have plenty of time to prepare for what they will tell the cops when they arrive.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2001/03/27/2001-03-27_quick_work_by_the_cops__nypd.html

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Double Naught Spy: Seems like the guy met all these criteria [(LEGAL, READY, and WILLING to shoot)] just fine. He was legal in being on his own property with a firearm.

Doubtful at best. He exhibited, brandished, and/or threatened with a firearm when it was not immediately necessary for self defense, after going out to confront other persons. If you cannot lawfully do that in the town square, you cannot do that in your yard.

[In response to "If you can't (or won't) shoot to stop RIGHT NOW (which may include killing) then you don't present the weapon."] Okay, so what about Kleck's millions of times a year firearms are successfully used to stop crime without a shot being fired?

Nothing says that you have to shoot, but to actually produce your weapon, you must be in a position to lawfully do so, except in Texas when force is justified. However, force would not have been justified in Texas, either.

Warning shots as in this case are an attempt to shoot to stop, the difference being that the attempt is psychological and not physiological. Then again, when it comes to handguns, shooting to stop is often psychological as well. His efforts did appear to work just fine at producing the desired stop.

Interesting idea, but from what has been reported, the defendant was not justified in shooting to stop.

Facing 25+ to 1 out in the open, even with an AK, is (not necessarily a suicidal position) and certainly not in this case. It is far from a safe position to be in, but it is a position from which a person or group can stop a numerically superior group.

Care to try it with paintball or simunitions? I wouldn't bet on the guy having survived as long as a BAR man in Korea, if the men had actually posed and imminent threat.

This sad event and some of the discussion we have had here very cogently illustrates the real importance of having an understanding of their local laws and the meaning thereof before picking up a firearm, unless one is about to die. It also illustrates the desirability of having at least some self-defense training.

 

[Sam1911]

If you "present" a firearm, you MUST be LEGAL, READY, and WILLING to shoot.

Seems like the guy met all these criteria just fine. He was legal in being on his own property with a firearm. He was obviously ready and willing to shoot.

I disagree. He was legal to be there, but not legal to shoot anyone (apparantly). He was obviously NOT ready and willing to shoot -- a specific threat. If there was an actual specific threatening person with means and opportunity to harm him NOW, then he should have shot that person. If there was not, then he should not have discharged his firearm.

Okay, so what about Kleck's millions of times a year firearms are successfully used to stop crime without a shot being fired?

What about them? Those "statistics" cover a lot of situations (none of which are "warning shots"). The fact that a gun was drawn, became visible, perhaps even was brandished -- or was even drawn and addressed to the target with every intent of shooting, but the target moved, dropped, fled, etc. and the defender did not take the shot. Some of those instances would be legally questionable (brandishing, etc) if they received a lot of police scrutiny, but they generally don't. Which is why they remain "anecdotes" and "statistics" rather than charges filed or court records.

Warning shots tend to put you into the latter category because you've often broken the law in discharging the firearm without having clear defensible justification for doing so. You fire your gun and the bad guy runs away. The police come on a "shots fired" call, and they have evidence that you fired your gun -- which is a crime. And they have nothing but your say-so that there was a bad guy as an "affirmative defense." It's a lose-lose situation.

Warning shots as in this case are an attempt to shoot to stop, the difference being that the attempt is psychological and not physiological.

I see your perspective, but I maintain that it is a very bad choice. If you are truly in fear of your life, you shoot THE THREAT. If you don't need to shoot THE THREAT, then you don't have justification to shoot. At anything. Period.

The better option would be to retreat inside, get yourself and your loved ones to a position of cover, and call the police.

Absolutely. Then again, maybe there isn't much in the way of cover in your hold that will actually protect you and your loved one. Of course, most folks don't know the difference between cover and concealment.

Yes, and as we're analyzing the proceedings with a view to improving our own responses, we may take the time to consider exactly what cover and concealment our own homes afford us. And to consider that cover doesn't necessarily have to be capable of stoping a .308 rifle round in order to provide a much better firing position than does a surrounded location in the open.

Even if ALL you had was darkness in which to hide, moving back to the origin point of that "fatal funnel" is far preferrable to standing in the open trading rounds. Using the natural concealment afforded by the structures of the interior of your home to keep you hard to see and very hard to hit. Using the natural pinch points of your doorways to stack the invaders up and reduce how many can come at you at once -- and how many routes of approach (threat-vectors) you have to cover at once -- gives you a huge advantage. Even if they were suicidal attackers bent on your destruction at all costs, you've divided them up into a more managable assemblage. Considering that these are human beings with very little desire to be the first (or second, or fifth) to fall dead in your doorway -- you've really changed the odds.

Facing 25+ to 1 out in the open, even with an AK, is a suicidal position.

Not necessarily and certainly not in this case. It is far from a safe position to be in, but it is a position from which a person or group can stop a numerically superior group.

I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. This guy was very lucky in that his "attackers" don't seem to have wanted very badly to fight him, but one man in the open -- with any weapon short of a claymore mine -- against 25 close-in threats is dead in all but the little tag on his toe. If they had wanted him -- AND IF THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE THREAT AMONG THE "ATTACKERS" TO BEGIN WITH -- he'd be well-ventillated.

Given that apparently nobody in the group wanted suffer being shot, the whole group was stopped. No doubt that was partially because the group was more of a mob as to being an organized, capable, and goal-oriented entity. Against the latter, his position would have been very bad indeed.

Well, we're in agreement, there. But I think that takes us back to my previous point that he didn't have a legitimate, defensible cause to shoot, so therefore firing his weapon remains a violation of the law.

Had he closed and locked his doors, retreated to whatever concealment and cover his home could afford, called 911 -- he would have forced his "attackers'" hands. He would have made them prove that they were real bad hombres who would invade his home and charge his defensive position, or that they were unruly trespassers who's harsh words didn't amount to much and whom the police should "move along" whenever they arrived.

 

[roo_ster]

The man's sins are:
1. Not bowing to and taking fully into account the accretion of anti-self-defense laws and gov't sentiment & actions in his locality.
2. Poor tactics

#1 refers to the web of legislation that has accrued over time that make defending self and family an exercise in legal Twister or some sort of legal square dance where one must get the steps perfect sequence or be out of line....and the guy who gets arrested instead of the goblin(s) who committed no-bull old-school common law crimes.

For some reason, I am not particularly outraged by violations of anti-self-defense laws. I don't automatically think of a man defending his family or self who fails to know the intricacies of anti-self-defense legalese as the bad guy. The goblins who assaulted and threatened him remain both the instigators and the goblins.

Personally, I think of the gov't as an accessory to the goblins, who do their best to tilt the field against solid citizens. Given that, I have examined local conditions (laws, prosecutorial leanings, past cases of self-defense). I consider it part of one's homework and would urge others to do the same. Not doing so, however, does not make someone the goblin or a bad person any more than not wearing a seat belt or driving an auto without air bags makes one a bad person.

#2 is open for debate, as tactics always are.

In this case the homeowner had to weigh some factors. Primarily, "Can I intimidate the goblins to the point of leaving without having to kill them?" If one thinks not, going out and giving their morale a beating-down makes no sense. But, there are hundreds of daily occurrences of LEOs and others talking folk down from potential violence, rather than taking the tactics uber alles approach.

Then, there is the question of going out and morale-whipping them reduces the chance that they will follow up on their threats and burn the family house down, with the occupants inside.

Me, I am not a LEO and not willing to talk folk out of foolishness if it increases the chances I might get harmed. I, too, have a family and part of their well-being rests on my well-being and being around.

To this end, given the OP's circumstances, I think the best course of action is NOT to retreat deep inside the house, "fatal funnel" or no. One must be ready to displace self & family if a molotov cocktail comes through a window. Most residential "fatal funnels" in the US require the defender to be on a second floor or away from any exit. A fine place if the goblins are few, but sub-optimal if there are enough goblins to operate under a mob psychology.

I would retreat inside, make sure family was ready to displace, and keep an eye on the mob outside. I'd have a line past which any pass get shot and be especially mindful of any with incendiaries., who get shot earlier and oftener. My house has a rear entrance by which I would stage the family. If the house catches fire or the mob gets to the front entrance, displace out the back to a neighbor's house and God have mercy any in the way, for I won't be especially discriminating at that point and I doubt my wife & her 9mm will, either.

 

[oldbanjo]

I never plan to point a weapon at anyone without firing it. No warnings. He should have waited in his house with a gun, called 911, his gun should not have been seen by anyone. It takes an nut to fire warning shots.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by roo_ster: The man's sins are:1. Not bowing to and taking fully into account the accretion of anti-self-defense laws and gov't sentiment & actions in his locality.2. Poor tactics

#1 refers to the web of legislation that has accrued over time that make defending self and family an exercise in legal Twister or some sort of legal square dance where one must get the steps perfect sequence or be out of line....and the guy who gets arrested instead of the goblin(s) who committed no-bull old-school common law crimes.

Well, New York started out with the English Common Law. Does anyone think this fellow's actions were justified under the Common Law? (Hint: he did not "retreat to the wall", as required under the Common Law.)

"Accrued over time"? Well, go back before the English Common Law--before 1189 AD--and see what the Codex Justinianus had to say seven hundred years before that. Or check out the Code of Hammurabi.

For some reason, I am not particularly outraged by violations of anti-self-defense laws.

The defendant did not break any "anti self defense" law. There were none to be broken.

Nothing in New York State Law prohibits anyone from using deadly force when it is immediately necessary to defend oneself against imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. However, there was no immediate necessity in this case--he is the one who went out with a weapon--and there was no imminent danger; verbal threats about harming someone later do not constitute imminent danger. Those little "technicalities" are by no means confined to the law in New York State; they apply in the other forty nine, as they applied in the Common Law centuries ago.

Had the defendant ended up needing to claim self defense, his action in going outside to confront the mob would most likely prevented a jury instruction to consider self defense in the first place. Happened in Texas earlier this year.

There sure are a lot of misconceptions in this area.

 

[roo_ster]

The defendant did not break any "anti self defense" law. There were none to be broken.

handgunlaw.com's distillation of NYS laws says otherwise:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyork.pdf
Some points:
Must have a permit
Permits difficult to obtain
Registration of all handguns

http://www.opencarry.org/ny.html
Consider NYS to be one of the top 5 rights-restricted states in the union.

Perhaps you consider this ^^^ "pro self defense?" Is not making the means of self-defense less accessible "anti self defense?"

As for "accrued over time," they did not all happen at once.

Had the defendant ended up needing to claim self defense, his action in going outside to confront the mob would most likely prevented a jury instruction to consider self defense in the first place

Thank you for helping me prove my point vis a vis "anti self defense" measures. In this case, judge's instructions.

----------

verbal threats about harming someone later do not constitute imminent danger

They do constitute assault in my state of Texas. If any of those threatening had a weapon, it is a felony, aggravated assault. If this took place at night, the homeowner would have even more latitude to deal with trespassers committing a crime on his property.
http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/texas-criminal-laws-penalties/assault/
http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/tx/law/c13.html#txc130600

Also, 5-20+ hostile folks making threats constitute "imminent danger" (intent to do injury and ability is present) to many folks in many states. Not sure about NYS law specifically, but the following page lists verbal threats combined with means as one instance where deadly force is justified:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/imminent-danger/

-----------

he is the one who went out with a weapon

Yes? On his own property. Still not seeing the outrage or where I ought to suddenly think less of the man because he exercises the RKBA on his own lawn.

his action in going outside to confront the mob

Hard to confront a mob in the kitchen after they've torched the place. If you are going to do it, you have to go out to his front yard, where the mob was.

-----------

To sum up, the homeowner is not the Bad Guy just because some slime-trail-leaving lawyer-critter legislators imposed "measures making self defense more difficult to accomplish(1)" in a legal fashion, according to their whim.

I would have done things differently, but I am not going to jump on him due to chickenshinola.

I suspect the homeowner made his largest mistake by trying to talk the goblins down from their threats & intentions of violence. IOW, he was too nice a guy and didn't want to hurt anybody. If he had been more bloody-minded and law-minded, he would have not gone back out to talk them down/scare them off and planted rounds in the goblins if/when they crossed some imaginary line (behavior or property) that undoubtedly was "imminent danger" in NYS.






(1) Roughly equivalent to the shorter "anti self defense legislation." But, why use three clear & concise words when you can use eight?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by roo_ster:
Some points:
Must have a permit
Permits difficult to obtain
Registration of all handguns

http://www.opencarry.org/ny.html
Consider NYS to be one of the top 5 rights-restricted states in the union.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the the laws under which the defendant was charged. Yes, NY is not an easy place to own guns---but according to the reports, the AK-47 was legally owned. Different subject.

Thank you for helping me prove my point vis a vis "anti self defense" measures [by saying, "Had the defendant ended up needing to claim self defense, his action in going outside to confront the mob would most likely prevented a jury instruction to consider self defense in the first place."] In this case, judge's instructions.

Now, wait a minute, this is not part of "a web of legislation accrued over time" [to hinder] "defending one's family." This has been the basis of law since the days of the Mayflower and long before; it serves to help judges and juries determine who is right and who is wrong, and distinguish between justified use of force, criminal acts, and mutual combat.

Verbal threats about harming someone later ... do constitute assault in my state

Yes indeed, and in the other forty nine. However, we were not discussing what crimes the gang members should have been charged with. No connection.

Also, 5-20+ hostile folks making threats constitute "imminent danger" (intent to do injury and ability is present) to many folks in many states.

That would have been up to a jury. Usually, case law specifies that verbal threats alone do not justify the use of deadly force. In Texas, that's clearly very stated in the statute.

A. O, and J here would have to be argued. What would destroy the defendant's case, had he used deadly force, is the fact that he went and got his gun and came out. There was no immediate necessity to do that, and the use of deadly force would other wise have been avoided. That's why the guy in Texas who did that was convicted of murder.

Yes? [he is the one who went out with a weapon] On his own property. Still not seeing the outrage or where I ought to suddenly think less of the man because he exercises the RKBA on his own lawn.

Do not confuse producing a weapon in a confrontation or anything that comes with that with RKBA.

In Florida, one may lawfully carry a weapon openly, outside, on his own property, as long as he does not step on any easements. In Wisconsin, one may do it anywhere except where it is forbidden. One cannot do so where I live--it varies by county. But that's not the point at all. We're not talking about open carry here.

What the defendant did was point the gun, threaten with it, and and fire it. Because he was not doing so in a lawful act of self defense (remember, he willfully went out to talk to the folks)...well, that's assault, aggravated assault perhaps, or assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing, unlawfully exhibiting a weapon in a threatening manner, depending on where you are. Whether he has been charged with any of that is not clear--doesn't seem so, unless the unspecified firearms charges fall into that category--but a lot of people do end up with prison time for doing such things, in many states including Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and Texas.

The idea that one can conduct oneself differently regarding the criminal codes because he is on his property seems to be a widespread misconception. I don't know what gives rise to it.

Hard to confront a mob in the kitchen after they've torched the place.

New York State law does provide for the use of deadly force if immediately necessary to prevent arson against one's occupied home. There has been no discussion of that, however, except in terms of vague threats about future action, and one may not shoot for that.

IOW, he was too nice a guy and didn't want to hurt anybody.

It does seem that he is a nice guy with decent motives. Unfortunately he was completely ignorant of the law, he completely ignored the risks involved in firing a gun in a densely populated area, and he didn't have a clue about tactics. He's learned the hard way about the legal aspects; fortunately, he wasn't killed or injured, and he did not hit anyone and end up being charged or sued for that. Mixed blessings.

Let's all help our friends not follow suit.

These are both good reads about self defense:

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

 

[3:00hold]

At the risk of simply saying the same thing twice, I think people are ignoring the possibility that the outcome (no good guys died) might have been the result of this guy's actions, even if they were tactically and/or legally ill-advised.

In other words, many are saying "Nothing bad happened to the family, so he overreacted", which could very well be reworded to read "Because of his actions, nothing bad happened to the family". Nobody here knows. For sure, the person in the best position to make that decision was the guy who fired the shots.

 

[hardworker]

The problem here lies in the inability of the judicial system to judge "intent". Court's aren't mind readers, they have no idea what those gang bangers would have done. Meaning an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. Hopefully dudeman here didn't fall on the wrong side of that line. He hasn't been convicted yet so we'll have to just wait and see.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Ok after reading this entire thread (and sheesh my eyes are whooped) My conclusion is as follows,

1rst off by what I have read from the majority of you guys here you have absolutely NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about how gangs work. If there are known gang members in those numbers outside your home threatening you, you damn well better believe you are in immediate danger period!

The mistake I see the guy made is going back outside to confront. From what I can gather on the various "news" sources, had he just went inside and called the police and kept his mouth shut there probably would not have been an issue with them. But like a few others have said, what were they doing there in the first place? With that thought in mind, gangs generally don't just show up in your yard IN FORCE for no reason at all period. I live in the middle of one of the biggest gangs in Illinois and I know the "leader" personally and he knows me. We have an agreement, he or his "people" don't mess with my home or family and his "people" wont get killed. Pretty simple. He shows me respect for one because he knows I mean business and am more than capable of defending myself and my home and for 2 I had the respect to face right up to him but in a respectful manner and not in a provoking way. I personally think, and this is just my lowly opinion on the matter, that there is a WHOLE other side to this story that is not being spoken of. As I said, 25+ of "gang" members aren't just going to pop up on your lawn unless there is a strong motivation for doing so. "Payback", "Retaliation", "Drugs" just to name a few. Now 3 or 4 trying to get "props" for being "jumped in" or something yes. But not an all out offensive attack in force hell no. Just a thought there.

All that being said, if I were in the same situation, there would have been no warning fire since that is 99% of the time a waste of ammunition and also my weapon would then be off target and not in position to defend, making me an easy target. I may have opened the door enough to make sure I was heard and warned them that I am armed and will use deadly force to defend my home and family then closed and bolted the door. I live in a solid brick home so it's pretty easily defended and has few entry points. Wife and child in the basement and me in the north corner of the living room where I can see all entry points and back against the wall with plenty of clips and 911 on the speaker phone. The only problem with all this is, this is a gang we are discussing here and they rarely, if ever, give up. They will wait until you believe you are safe and then get you from behind. Dealing with gangs is pretty much a no win situation without bloodshed. It is their mentality and one that has to be thought of in any situation dealing with them.

 

[Dwrice]

I am not saying it is right but I don't see this as a large an issue if the weapon was not an AK or similar weapon. I think that decision makers are going to view a person with an AK as a thug and make their decisions starting at that point. If the police get called to a situation like this and one person has an AK he is going to be looked at as the bad guy over the guy with a more main stream weapon. Maybe it is my background but I am not a big believer in warning shots if you are in fear of a person using deadly force you can use deadly force.

 

[mbt2001]

Firing warning shots, while being illegal, is understandable. In this case, he felt threatened, but was hesitant to take lives. That is something to be commended, not condemned. The DA may have a problem with it, I am not sure that I do.