A Slant on the Castle Doctrine?

MLeake said:
Also bear in mind, that in some jurisdictions, there is no allowance made for a warning shot. You have just used deadly force, in those places, and legally are no better off than if you had shot the person - in which case, use of deadly force had better have been justified, or you are in the hurt locker.
Click to expand...
Heck, in most states simply drawing your firearm, and possibly just putting your hand on the butt while the gun remains holstered, is legally the exact same use of deadly force as actually shooting the assailant. So, if you're going to use it ... use it wisely and effectively.
 
I really think "the message" could be anywhere from "He ain't got the nads" to "Holy crap! This guy is serious!".
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. The problem is that the people making the warning shot think that they are doing things like demonstrating power, a willingness to shoot, and/or a willingness to kill, but the message is quite ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The message being encoded isn't necessarily the message being decoded. In other words, the warning shot may not be the best way to get the message across...and you are down one round.

Like I said above, I can't argue with the fact that they have been shown to work in many circumstances. This appears to be one. He did 4 shots and apparently dissuaded a group of people from overrunning his home (or that was the claim) and he didn't have to shoot any of them. Then he got busted.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/

I don't have information on when it has failed to work.

"Wow, that guy's a really bad shot! Look how much he missed me by! Oh, and now he's hesitating. Now's my chance. Imma steal all his Chia pets!"
Click to expand...

That's not funny. I have Chia Pets. They are very special. ;)
 
Warning shot ... NO! If you feel your life or someone else's life in jeopardy ... don't "warn" ... shoot to stop the threat. If that means the attacker dies ... it is NOT something I will have sleep problems over. The attacker made the call ... I simply responded to his/her aggression.

I also don't buy all the angst about killing another human being. If I just walked down the street and popped a person for no reason at all ... THAT would be sick and I should have emotional problems with that. Killing someone who wants to injure or kill me ... no emotional problems at all. I would view that no differently from my time in ground combat. A thug breaking into my house at 3AM or an NVA soldier emerging from cover ... not a human being ... just another target. Sorry if that makes some of you uncomfortable, but that's how it's been for me since 1968.
 
I also would hate to think of the collateral damage of a warning shot.

I know that we trained over when and when not to use warning shots as a matter of our ROE, but that was in the big Sandbox where not every dude with a weapon is hostile.

However, if someone is in my home, I feel that the necessity of a warning shot has been over ridden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top