manta49 said:
Shooting some that was judged not justified, could get you as much trouble or more than firing a warning shot that was not justified. I don't think matters whether you shoot someone , fire a warning shot , or brandishing a firearm it justifying it that is the issue. I assume the advice applies to all states, as the ones posting no warning shot seem to be applying it to all states.
Manta49, you're still not understanding what I'm saying. I really wish there was a "banging your head against the wall" emoticon here like there are on some other forums...
OK, I'll try YET AGAIN to explain this; I thought I already explained this in posts #65, 67, and 89; and .22lr explained it in post #86. But obviously our explanations aren't working. But here goes again:
Simply the act of firing a warning shot can make a justified shooting appear to be unjustified (or it can just give more evidence against you to prove that an unjustified shooting was unjustified). When examining a shooting, the authorities try to determine whether the shooter truly felt his life was in danger. Unless they have a video of the shooting, all they can use is more indirect evidence. And the fact that warning shots were fired can give evidence that the shooting wasn't justified (even if it was). After all,
why would you shoot a warning shot if your life was in danger at that moment and you needed to stop your attacker?
Add in the negligent, stray-bullet aspect of firing a warning shot, and it should be pretty clear why it's such a bad idea.
manta49 said:
Are you saying that Massad Ayoob is stupid for saying they work sometimes. ?
I'm not even sure how to respond to this.
Of course they work sometimes! Lots of dumb things work sometimes! We've all done dumb things that worked out and didn't get us into trouble, but that doesn't mean they weren't dumb. And Massad Ayoob says that warning shots are a bad idea.
Manta49, if you're going to resort to ridiculous
straw man arguments, then there's really no point in trying to talk to you anymore.