See theres a difference in mindset here. I look for ways to avoid taking someones life. All thru this thread, you have been looking for ways to justify it.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.
I assume numerous examples of were firing a warning shot has being proved on numerous occasions to be a terrible idea.? I would be interested in reading them.Warning shots have proven time and again to be a terrible idea from both a tactical and a legal standpoint.
Once again, you're simply not understanding what we're saying. Nobody is saying that you have to fire your gun if you draw it. What we're saying is that you should never draw your firearm unless you're justified to use it at that moment. Period. But if you draw your weapon and the aggressor stops, of course you shouldn't fire at that point.manta49 said:Could a drawn firearm and a verbal warning be appropriate in some circumstances. I don't think you are likely to accidently hit someone and injure them with a verbal warning. Or should you always follow what some are posting, if you draw your firearm use it.
Google "warning shot bad idea" to see plenty of expert opinions on the subject. Brian already linked a few of them. And then Google "warning shot arrested" to see plenty of examples of people being arrested for warning shots. Brian posted one example, here are several more:manta49 said:I assume numerous examples of were firing a warning shot has being proved on numerous occasions to be a terrible idea.? I would be interested in reading them.
When They Work. Massad Ayoob.
There have certainly been cases where warning shots worked. I had the privilege of knowing the late, great gun writer and career lawman Charles “Skeeter” Skelton. Charlie wrote of a case where he faced a psycho who was terrorizing a store with a large knife. Charlie took the man at gunpoint, and ordered him to drop the blade. The man refused. Skelton then fired a .44 Special bullet from his Smith & Wesson into the wooden floor, between the man’s feet. At that point, the individual instantly “got religion,” dropped the knife, and surrendered without further ado. This, I would submit, is an example of a successful warning shot worthy of being called Case Three
Exactly!!! That's one of the many reasons to not fire a warning shot! Did you read any of what I wrote in posts #65 and #67? By firing a warning shot, you're often making it appear that you weren't justified to use your firearm. After all, if you were truly justified in using your firearm, you would have actually fired at your attacker. But if you fire a warning shot, you make it appear that you didn't believe your life was in danger at that moment.manta49 said:In the examples the problem that I can see was not the fact that they fired a warning shot, but that they were judged not to have being justified to have used their firearm.
No! As soon as the threat stops so should your use of deadly force.manta49 said:Do you shoot him anyway to justify you brandishing your firearm.
Possibly. But that's not because it's "more legal" to shoot someone unjustifiably than to fire a warning shot. Keep in mind that the authorities usually have to piece together what happened based on incomplete evidence. If you shoot someone unjustifiably but there's no evidence that it was unjustified, then there's not much for the police to go on. But, in some cases, the act of firing of a warning shot can give evidence that the use of a firearm was unjustified.manta49 said:Do you think if in some of your examples you posted, if they shot and killed or injured the people everything would have being fine.
manta49 said:In the examples the problem that I can see was not the fact that they fired a warning shot, but that they were judged not to have being justified to have used their firearm.
The whole point is that they're a bad idea. They're a bad idea because they get you in trouble. It's hard to show that they get you in trouble by linking to stories where the shooter DIDN'T get in trouble
Warning Shot" Bill passed today in Florida
The "Warning Shot" Bill official known as Justifiable Defensive Threat of Force Signed in to Law by Gov. Rick Scott today 6/20/14.
House Bill 89 by Representatives Combee (R) and Edwards (D) in the Florida House, and Senator Evers (R) in the Florida Senate, was signed in to law today by Governor Scott. The new law clarifies that a person may threaten the use of defensive force in order to prevent or terminate an imminent or actual unlawful physical attack or commission of a forcible felony by an aggressor.
The new law is designed to stop prosecutors from charging people who defend themselves and their families from criminal attackers with a crime, provide for having the criminal records of people who are wrongfully accused of aggravated assault for an act if self-defense expunged, and prevent the use of 10-20-Life against people who act in self-defense.
In plain English, if you are imminent threat of physical attack or the intended victim of a forcible felony, you can discharge your firearm as an intimidating threat to deter the impending crime
Are you saying that Massad Ayoob is stupid for saying they work sometimes. ?As for your Massad Ayoob quote, notice that he still says in that article that warning shots are a bad idea. Sure, sometimes they have worked from a tactical standpoint and sometimes they haven't resulted in an arrest. But just because you do something stupid and you don't face consequences, that doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to begin with
No, I think you're giving bad advice in advising people to shoot warning shots. Not just that, but I think you're giving irresponsible and negligent advice as well; many new shooters come here to learn, and the last thing we want to do is advise people to do something as stupid as fire a warning shot.manta49 said:So to say a warning shot is never a good idea is I think bad advice.
I agree. But that's a straw man argument. I'm not saying, "If you draw your firearm, use it"; I'm saying, "Don't draw your firearm unless you're justified in using it." There's a HUGE difference in those two statements.manta49 said:if you draw your firearm use it [is bad advice].
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...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.
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 said:Are you saying that Massad Ayoob is stupid for saying they work sometimes. ?