Almost drew my gun yesterday

[Theohazard]

Theo, when you see stand off scenarios or police officers using their vehicles for cover, are they ever IN their vehicles? They are using their vehicles as cover from outside their vehicle.

Those police officers are prepared ahead of time and they're not on the defensive. They are also police officers, so they have a lot more legal leeway than we do when it comes to using their firearms. But when police officers are in their cars and they're ambushed by someone with a gun, they're usually taught to stay in their vehicles and return fire. Then, once they've initially returned fire, only then are they taught to exit the vehicle when the situation allows.

Here's a police training article describing the tactics. In an ambush by a gunman, police are taught to use the car for cover, return fire from inside the vehicle, and only exit the vehicle when the situation allows it.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if I was in the situation, I would draw my weapon and prepare to exit my vehicle.

In that situation, Drawing your gun and exiting the vehicle is a terrible decision from both a tactical and a legal standpoint.

I think preparing to exit the vehicle was the right choice.

No. That would've been a very bad choice. Everyone telling you to exit the vehicle right away is just plain wrong. If I were you, I would seriously re-evaluate your tactics, because they're going to get you in trouble some day.

 

[colbad]

Some may think showing the FA solves the problem. Do not be surprised if the individual throws his arm up and say "what you going do shoot me"...and continues to cuss you out. You ready to shoot him now? If not he may take the gun from you and report the nut who just tried to kill him. You were the one who turned a verbal altercation into a gun fight by pulling first. Cry all you want how scared you were, but absent a weapon or physical injury YOU appear the aggressor who pulled a gun on an unarmed man.

If you pull it, better be ready to use it! Getting out of your vehicle totally negates any "fear" argument. Even a punch or assault in most cases does not justify use of deadly force. You prob recall the arguments in the FL case. Many might say because you had a gun you felt more aggressive in pressing the matter and engaging to inflame matters.

 

[manta49]

Just remember that you can't use deadly force unless you're in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Why would you shoot someone's trunk instead of them if you were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm? Must not have been too imminent if you had time to shoot at their car.

I understand what you are saying but I find it strange that you could get jailed for firing a warning shot that could stop the aggression no one hurt. but if you shoot instead then that's OK. I think the person in the example you give would have being in trouble warning shot or if they shoot them, the court must of decided neither would have being justified.

 

[.22lr]

With my pistol at the low, I would tell him to get back in his car. If he continued at us, aggressively, I would have raised my pistol. If he continued, he is probably psychotic with intentions of doing physical harm and may even have a weapon of his own. Serious thought would be given to pulling the trigger.

There are a lot of variables that would affect decisions made in mere seconds. Do I fire a warning shot? Not at the ground, it could ricochet and hit an innocent person. Would I shoot his trunk? Good possibility.

Do you look particullary good in orange? Is that why you are desprate to display a weapon (assault with a deadly weapon) or employ deadly force (warning shot; recently shown to be a bad idea)... But luckily you are willing to make your "warning shot" look like attempted murder! ("he shot at me, but missed and hit my trunk!")

But at least exiting your vehicle, weapon in hand, sets you up nicely for a charge of Mutual Combat negating your claim of self defense. But its not like there is any case law in Michigan covering how mutual combat negates the claim of self defense. The law is not want we want nor what we think it should be. It is what it is. Determined ignorance of the law is less than helpful.

 

[Theohazard]

I understand what you are saying but I find it strange that you could get jailed for firing a warning shot that could stop the aggression no one hurt. but if you shoot instead then that's OK. I think the person in the example you give would have being in trouble warning shot or if they shoot them, the court must of decided neither would have being justified.

Other than the risk of stray bullets injuring bystanders, warning shots are a terrible idea because they can be used to show that the person firing the warning shot wasn't in fear for his life at that moment.

If someone fires a warning shot, it can be argued that this means they weren't in fear for their life: After, all, if you're in fear for your life, why not actually fire at the person attacking you? And therefore, if it can be shown that the person wasn't in fear for their life because they fired warning shots, any subsequent shots that hit the assailant are more likely be called into question.

Basically, the argument would be that when the person started shooting, they obviously weren't in fear for their life, otherwise they would have aimed directly at their assailant. So, when the assailant ends up shot, there might be more questions about whether the shooting was actually legally justified.

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer nor am I an expert in the legal use of self-defense. But this is how it's been explained to me by people who are experts.

 

[manta49]

If someone fires a warning shot, it can be argued that this means they weren't in fear for their life: After, all, if you're in fear for your life, why not actually fire at the person attacking you? And therefore, if it can be shown that the person wasn't in fear for their life because they fired warning shots, any subsequent shots that hit the assailant are more likely be called into question.

I would need to be in fear for my life before I would fire a warning shot, I don't get the logic. So the law encourages shooting someone rather than trying to stop the threat with less lethal force strange. As for bystanders obviously don't pull the trigger if you are likely to hit an innocent bystander, that goes for shooting at the person or a warning shot. I think it would have to be justifiable whether someone fired a warning shot or shot at the person, if it was not doing either could get you in trouble.

 

[Theohazard]

I would need to be in fear for my life before I would fire a warning shot, I don't get the logic. So the law encourages shooting someone rather than trying to stop the threat with less lethal force strange.

You're missing the point here. The claim of self-defense hinges on proving that you were in fear for your life at that exact moment. If someone is in the process of attacking you and you're in fear for your life at that moment, why in the world would you just fire a warning shot? Don't you actually want to stop the attack by shooting the person?

So, by firing a warning shot, you're simply providing evidence that you weren't in fear for your life. And therefore lethal force may have not been justified at that moment.

Warning shots have proven time and again to be a terrible idea from both a tactical and a legal standpoint. I'm amazed that there are still people here advocating for the firing of warning shots in a self-defense situation.

 

[manta49]

You're missing the point here. The claim of self-defense hinges on proving that you were in fear for your life at that exact moment. If someone is in the process of attacking you and you're in fear for your life at that moment, why in the world would you just fire a warning shot? Don't you actually want to stop the attack by shooting the person?

I am not missing the point I know exactly what you are saying. My point is that I would need to be in fear of my life before I would fire a warning shot, would you not.? The key is justifiable shoot to kill or fire a warning shot. If you were justified in firing a shot at the person , then you would certainly be justified in firing a warning shoot. Just drawing your firearm could be enough to stop someone's aggression, should you shoot them anyway to make you drawing your firearm look more justifiable. If people are being told that if they are in fear of their life rightly or wrongly the one and only option is to shoot them, that bad advice the shooter could end up in jail. Just because you said you were in fear for your life is no guarantee, a jury could decide differently.

 

[spacemanspiff]

If your life/safety is threatened to the point where you have to at the very least draw your weapon out, do you honestly believe that you will have the mental fortitude to take a carefully aimed shot in the direction of the threat yet aim it so that you dont hit the threat, and you are positive your bullet will safely fly off without harming anyone?

With that massive adrenalin dump, do you want to add to the fecesstorm firing a warning shot?

We take the time to mentally prepare for the horrific event of using deadly force in defense of ourselves or for someone else, our loved ones, even complete strangers.
We select weapons that will do the job, and practice shooting so we are proficient with them.
We select defensive ammunition that is proven to stop an attacker, without over penetrating.
We change our language so we talk about 'stopping' instead of 'killing'.

Feel free to fire a warning shot if you like. Thats YOUR choice.

 

[manta49]

Feel free to fire a warning shot if you like. Thats YOUR choice.

I didn't say I would fire a warning shot. I said I seen it as an option, every situation is different and a person could only decide what to do when they are in that situation. As for hitting an innocent bystander, I have already said if that is an issue you should not be firing a warning shot or a shot at someone that could miss and not hit your intended target. That is more of a possibility than hitting someone by firing a shot in the air i would think or at a safe back stop. Do you not see that as a possible issue.

NEW YORK – All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

 

[Onward Allusion]

First and foremost, get the hell out of there if possible.

Stay in the car and call 911. Make sure the guy sees that you are on the phone. Don't get out of your car. Take a pic of his plates if possible.

Most people come to their senses when they realize that they can be ID'd.

If the guy beats on your friend's car after all that; draw your gun but don't point it at him. The rest of it is a crap shoot. If he's trying to break into the car then all bets are off. Even then, though - some ADA wanting to make a name for themselves may come after you if you shoot or kill the guy.

It's always a pain in the rear to shoot someone legally.

 

[Skans]

You may be concealed back there, but you will have no cover.

What cover are you going to have once you get outside of your vehicle???

Really? I have to wait until after RRG damages me or the vehicle to protect my life?

Are you really going to shoot someone simply for walking up to you shouting? Yeah, it really does work that way - but you go ahead and do it your way - get out of your car, pull your gun and shoot as soon as the aggressor gets within 21 feet of you. Let me know how that works out....if you still have internet access.

 

[JD0x0]

What cover are you going to have once you get outside of your vehicle???

Still the car itself. And now, instead of shooting through 1 layer of sheet metal, the bullets will likely have to pass through both sides of the car. It's much less likely that most standard pistol rounds will pierce both doors and still have energy to do significant damage to a human. If the BG has a impact weapon they'd need to climb around the car or run around it to reach you, which gives you time, at the very least.

Cement highway dividers, trees, other vehicles. And what's more is that you have the freedom to move.

I'm not saying that exiting the car would always be the better choice, but sometimes it is.

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, a warning shot is almost always a terrible, terrible idea. That bullet will be going somewhere -- and perhaps somewhere you don't want it to go. And if you're truly in a critical situation facing imminent death, you need to deal with the situation.

Second, in most cases, in most States, threatening someone with a gun (or firing the gun) must be justified on the same basis as using lethal force in self defense. Even in those few States applying a different standard to threatening lethal force you must still be able to show justification for you action.

 

[manta49]

First, a warning shot is almost always a terrible, terrible idea. That bullet will be going somewhere -- and perhaps somewhere you don't want it to go. And if you're truly in a critical situation facing imminent death, you need to deal with the situation.

Second, in most cases, in most States, threatening someone with a gun (or firing the gun) must be justified on the same basis as using lethal force in self defense. Even in those few States applying a different standard to threatening lethal force you must still be able to show justification for you action.

(I said you should not shoot a warning shot or shoot at someone unless you are a sure as you can be that it won't hit a bystander). A warning shot is no more likely if careful to hit an innocent bystander that one shot at the person you are intending to shoot. Example

NEW YORK – All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

Someone walking towards your car does not equate to imminent death. You need to ( JUSTIFY ) your decision , it doesn't matter if you fired a warning shot, threaten the person with a firearm or shot the person. I can find examples of innocent bystanders being hit with bullets fired at a person, can you find examples of an iniocent person being hit with a warning shot. ?

 

[Mokumbear]

I recently took an online driver safety course so I would not receive
any points after some minor traffic infraction.

One thing that stuck with me is "there is nothing on the highway worth dying for". I will add to that, "there is very little on the highway worth killing over.

What might see important in the heat of the moment might seem
as pointless after the fact.

For years, I have been very very careful to avoid anything that
could be interpreted as road range.

If someone is driving erratically and acting "mental", I try to keep as
much distance between our vehicles as possible.

No eye contact, no yelling, no bird flipping.
Get out of the area and call 911.

 

[pax]

Post #64 was very well done. I suggest everyone read it and follow the links.

pax

 

[indie_rocker]

An excerpt from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-supreme-court/1106701.html#, last paragraph is interesting.

The statement of the governing principles of self-defense as set forth in People v. Doe, 1 Mich. 451, 456-457 (1850), is indicative of the common-law rules that were in place when the Legislature enacted Michigan's murder statutes just four years earlier.   These principles remain apropos today and have not been modified since their implicit codification more than 150 years ago:

First. That a man who, in the lawful pursuit of his business, is attacked by another under circumstances which denote an intention to take away his life, or do him some enormous bodily harm, may lawfully kill the assailant, provided he use all the means in his power, otherwise, to save his own life or prevent the intended harm;  such as retreating as far as he can, or disabling his adversary without killing him, if it be in his power.[21]

Secondly. When the attack upon him is so sudden, fierce and violent, that a retreat would not diminish, but increase his danger, he may instantly kill his adversary without retreating at all.

Thirdly. When from the nature of the attack, there is reasonable ground to believe that there is a design to destroy his life, or commit any felony upon his person, the killing of the assailant will be excusable homicide, although it should afterwards appear that no felony was intended.  [Emphasis supplied.]

 

[torbjork]

Someone getting out of their vehicle and directing harsh language in your general direction hardly constitutes an evident "design to destroy your life or commit felony upon your person."

 

[45_auto]

Pay special attention to a particular clause in that last paragraph that you cited:

there is reasonable ground

You have no control over the makeup of the jury that will decide whether you had "reasonable ground" or not.

If you want to play games with the wording of the law, you probably want to be VERY careful that your interpretation of "reasonable ground" agrees with the jury's (composed of probably 50% non-gun owners and [anti-gun types]) definition.

Good luck!