Can you use your weapon?
- Thread starter MEDDAC19
- Start date
The state does not give you the 'right' to defend yourself or others. That right is given by God. There may be some kind of repercussions from the state if you kill someone in yours or others defence, but that doesn't make what the state does right. I believe this thread was started as a philosophical question as to killing someone in defence of people other than yourself or family, is it morally right. Yes. If the state thinks so too, that's fine and good and if the state thinks it's wrong, that doesn't change the fact that it is still the right thing to do.
People sometimes let the state give them things or take away things that already belong to them. We here on this forum have a interest in guns and shooting which some may believe the right to guns is given by the 2nd admendment. Those who believe this are wrong. The right to arms is not given by our government. The right to arms was already there if you read the 2nd, it says, 'the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed'.
It doesn't say the 2nd gives you a right. It just says the right you already have shall not be infringed. So, I say all of this to say, do what is right. Help those who may need your help. Learn to shoot well and pray you never have to use your skills in a bad situation.
People sometimes let the state give them things or take away things that already belong to them. We here on this forum have a interest in guns and shooting which some may believe the right to guns is given by the 2nd admendment. Those who believe this are wrong. The right to arms is not given by our government. The right to arms was already there if you read the 2nd, it says, 'the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed'.
It doesn't say the 2nd gives you a right. It just says the right you already have shall not be infringed. So, I say all of this to say, do what is right. Help those who may need your help. Learn to shoot well and pray you never have to use your skills in a bad situation.
hummelsander
New member
Where does the state think this "warning shot" is going to end up? Bad Guys don't shoot warning shots. The just pull the trigger hoping to hit anything. This tactic, although very elementary, causes fear. If we pull our weapons and pull the trigger, it ought not to be a warning shot. It should hit a specific target.
Hummelsander......
Well said. Warning shots can kill innocent people. If there is to be a warning shot, it should be fired at the bad guy.
" I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 " At the worst I might do some time, but my family will still be there when I get out, not the bad guy!
Well said. Warning shots can kill innocent people. If there is to be a warning shot, it should be fired at the bad guy.
" I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 " At the worst I might do some time, but my family will still be there when I get out, not the bad guy!
I can't believe anyplace would make warning shots mandatory. If for some reason it truly is that way it is, I recommend shooting the badguy with your warning shot and claiming that your aim was off due to the stress and trauma caused by the badguy putting your life in imminent peril.
David Armstrong
Moderator
I CCW to protect myself and my loved ones, not to defend the whole world against evildoers. I already spent 20 years doing that as a LEO, I'm not doing it now just for fun. You better consider all the ramifications, including a pretty nasty civil suit, before you go running off to save the day. Is it worth your family having to visit you in jail and lose their source of income (if found guilty of a criminal charge) or is it worth losing your home, your savings, and everything else (if you lose the civil case)? Remember folks like Rodney Peirs and Bernard Goetz---even after surviving the criminal trial they still have to pay millions becasue of the civil suits.
The mall scenario brought up earlier would truly be a nightmare. I think in cases where a bad guy is threatening your life or that of one or two other persons then the "go/no go" decision on whether to shoot should be "no" if a strong possibility exists of hitting a bystander -- in other words, don't shoot. However, in a case where many people are in danger of being killed in a few moments' time if you don't shoot then it becomes a more difficult position to be in. Consider two of the possible outcomes: you shoot, killing the attacker and hit a bystander. You probably saved the lives of several people including the bystander if he/she survives your shot. Or, you manage the locational awareness to notice innocent bystanders beyond the attacker and decide to not take the shot and attempt to seek a better position behind cover or somewhere that might afford a shot that won't endanger anyone else. While you are doing this, five people are shot to death -- perhaps including one of the bystanders you noticed before.
Which decision makes you more responsible for the loss of life?
True, the attacker is guilty and responsible for anyone he/she shoots. But which decision is more justifiable on your part? I hope to God I'm never in that position.
By the way, I agree that you will most likely be held liable - at least in a civil suit - if you shoot a bystander in an attempt to stop the attacker regardless of your intentions.
Which decision makes you more responsible for the loss of life?
True, the attacker is guilty and responsible for anyone he/she shoots. But which decision is more justifiable on your part? I hope to God I'm never in that position.
By the way, I agree that you will most likely be held liable - at least in a civil suit - if you shoot a bystander in an attempt to stop the attacker regardless of your intentions.
I agree with you. I think the popular slogan "To protect and serve" is actually just that, an abstract feelgood slogan for "public relations." The fact is police cannot, nor were they originally mean't to "protect and serve." If the police's job was to protect you then effectively you would have to have a policeman next to you 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Obviously not possible. Police forces didn't even exist until the 1850s anywhere in the world. The purpose of police originally was not to protect people or to "prevent crime" but to solve crime. Catch the criminal.
It used to be we relied on sheriff or constables to do this who would, if needed, deputize a posse or group of ARMED citizens to aid in this. Then large northern cities got the idea to hire full time policemen to do this. Gradually we have come to a line of thinking that it's the police's job to protect us. I'll never forget the later Dragnet Episode in the early 70s when Friday and Gannon were on a radio show doing a Question/Answer session and this man walks up to the microphone and (he is of course wild eyed, paranoid and crazy) screams "WHY DO WE NEED GUN CONTROL I GOTTA PROTECT MY FAMILY....BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
Bill Gannon responds, "Well Sir, if you have time to get to a gun, you've got time to get to a phone and call us."
I guess in theory, while the police are on their way, in the meantime the guy is supposed to throw the phone at the criminal
I like the reverse saying, like one other poster in this forum says (I can't remember who it is) "A gun in the hand, beats a cop on the phone" 
I like watching the old Jack Webb tv shows like Dragnet 1950s and 1960s-70s and especially the spinoff series Adam-12
in their efforts to portray the real everyday experience of the police but in trying to be pro-Police, Webb after the 1960s, started getting a little anti-gun along with it....although he was FAR more conservative minded than most hollywood types. BTW, TV Land needs to bring back Adam-12 
Like you said we are all supposed to protect and serve just out of common decency. We are all in this community together. Just like when you pass the scene of an accident, even if your not involved, you stop to see if you can help. In the same sense we are all policemen in the sense that if you carry a weapon or some other means to help during a crisis you just as a matter of fact are going to need to help others if for no other reason that you are in danger just like everyone else. Your not going out looking "to save the world" for glory. Your not looking to be a hero. Sgt. York and Audie Murphy weren't looking to "save the world," they just did what they had to do during a needed situation. You will either freeze up scared or you will just do what has to be done in the moment by God's grace. I'd hate to be faced with that either, but if it ever came, I'd l pray that I'd do the right thing.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if everyone was armed who was comfortable with a gun. The odds would be better during such a crisis and the crisis would be far less likely to happen if the criminal knew this and fewer lives would be lost. (Granted there are no doubt a lot of NRA people that would find that last sentence extreme, having visions of massive shootouts in Dodge City in Errol Flynn movies. But it's just my feelings on the matter. I am for absolutely NO gun control.)
Thanks guys, for all the good responses. It seems that the general consensus is not to hesitate if it is loved ones, and unfortunately, to be very careful when helping out your fellow man. It is sad that we must stop first, and consider all the possible legal ramifications when we should be able to give aid freely. It is a shame that our society has become so litigious that we would stand down when someone is in danger or being killed. I find it very disheartening that we have to even think, let him/her get robbed, mugged, raped, because there is a lawyer waiting to file a law suit. Do any/many of you feel the same way that I do? There should be some form of Good Samaritan law to protect us if we step up and do the right thing, help our brother on the street. As was said in some posts if you are acting within reason and not just sprayin' an prayin', the laws should then protect the law abider, not the law breaker.
Last edited:
But I'm not sure it's always that simple -- which is what I was getting at in my previous post. If you shoot to protect the life of the person next to you while another innocent party is standing beyond the target, I'm not sure that is a responsible action. On the other hand, if you shoot to save the lives of several people and in doing so endanger the life of one person, then it could be justified -- it will depend on how the potential criminal and civil courts view the situation. It might come down to: Yes, the guy's intentions were good but should he have taken different action that would not have resulted in the death/injury of this innocent third party? The question is, do the ends justify the means? I think it should by necessity be judged on a case by case basis.
Honestly, I believe it is that simple. In the case you cite. 1) The bullet will probably not overpenetrate into the other person. The gun from the bad guy will DEFINATELY penetrate into you and everyone else there. He is the cause of all trouble, he needs to be stopped. 2) You want to try to be careful and hitting other people, you don't want to be reckless, however realistically, while trying to do that, you have a decision to make usually more on instinct than taking a few seconds to think about "what if ____ or what if _____". In a case like that you probably won't even have 2 two seconds to think. If you hesitate you and more people are definately going to die. Again, like the other poster said, there should be a Good Samaritan law (so to speak) that protects the good guys from suit and charges in these cases. There is a difference between recklessness (spraying and praying) and taking risks like shooting someone with possibly an innocent on the other side of your target. You can always do alot of "what ifs" but Bottom line: THE BAD GUY should be held responsible for all deaths that occur except for cases of obvious recklessness.
Who pays?
In Washington State the courts have trended to hold the felon accountable for all outcomes unless there is proof of neg conduct and use the reasonable man standard for both LE and cits. This has resulted in life sents. for crims. that killed while fleeing in a car from police for example. That does not stop the civil suits for damages against both however...
I would like to turn this around slightly and mention that there is case law for LE now that makes us liable for NOT taking action including shooting in civil court. This will no doubt be extended in time to those that were there but did nothing.
As to Davids comment about not saving the world he is living in the real world of blue state courts and cop hating media. I have been doing it for 27 years and even think hard before doing anything anymore. Mores the pity but the is the real world we have let get to this point...
In Washington State the courts have trended to hold the felon accountable for all outcomes unless there is proof of neg conduct and use the reasonable man standard for both LE and cits. This has resulted in life sents. for crims. that killed while fleeing in a car from police for example. That does not stop the civil suits for damages against both however...
I would like to turn this around slightly and mention that there is case law for LE now that makes us liable for NOT taking action including shooting in civil court. This will no doubt be extended in time to those that were there but did nothing.
As to Davids comment about not saving the world he is living in the real world of blue state courts and cop hating media. I have been doing it for 27 years and even think hard before doing anything anymore. Mores the pity but the is the real world we have let get to this point...
Double Naught Spy
New member
It is not frivilous if you shoot a 3rd party non-combatant in Texas even though you felt you needed to use lethal force against another individual. Charging you for shooting the wrong person is not frivolous either. If you kill that innocent 3rd party person, you won't be charged with murder, but you will be charged with manslaughter. You may consider it frivolous and I am sure being someone's homegirl in prison wont' be frivolous either
The situation does not cause you to take a shot. You always have a choice and when you make that choice, then you get the consequences that go with it. That should have been covered explicitly in your CHL class. You are responsible for every round you fire down range, be it at the public range where you practice or in a gun fight.
If you shoot an innocent 3rd party in the use of lethal force where you may be justified in the use of lethal force, that is both carelessness and negligence. It is careless of you shoot the wrong person and by your definition, that would make it negligent. Even so, your definition of what is or is not negligent doesn't apply to Texas law.
Wondering
I am new to this site, so forgive me if the moderators screen it without my knowledge, but I read these postings and am torn between saying we should all thank RWK and Double Naught Spy for some free legal advise and saying that this is the Internet where 40 year old men who have "less than honorable intentions" pose as teenagers. While it is good to think about what you would do, even play the "what if" game, it might be prudent to ask such questions of a good attorney IN YOUR HOME JURISDICTION. Carry a gun or not, we should always be aware of our surroundings and teach our family the same thing; your wife should have an escape plan from her vehicle in case a BG graps her door and tells her to "move over". I think the question was, "can you use your gun?" but was it a legal question or was it the same type of question the instructor posed the first night of our law enforcement training, "in defense of your partner, another officer or a civilian, can you take a human life? If not leave now." Several people did.
And I tend to wonder if Spy is really telling us something about his intentions on a pro-gun site? Just me, I guess, but suspicion is part of my job and my nature.
Thanks for the information, anyway.
John
Charlotte, NC
I am new to this site, so forgive me if the moderators screen it without my knowledge, but I read these postings and am torn between saying we should all thank RWK and Double Naught Spy for some free legal advise and saying that this is the Internet where 40 year old men who have "less than honorable intentions" pose as teenagers. While it is good to think about what you would do, even play the "what if" game, it might be prudent to ask such questions of a good attorney IN YOUR HOME JURISDICTION. Carry a gun or not, we should always be aware of our surroundings and teach our family the same thing; your wife should have an escape plan from her vehicle in case a BG graps her door and tells her to "move over". I think the question was, "can you use your gun?" but was it a legal question or was it the same type of question the instructor posed the first night of our law enforcement training, "in defense of your partner, another officer or a civilian, can you take a human life? If not leave now." Several people did.
And I tend to wonder if Spy is really telling us something about his intentions on a pro-gun site? Just me, I guess, but suspicion is part of my job and my nature.
Thanks for the information, anyway.
John
Charlotte, NC