HD Question

[peacefulgary]

Unless you are a physician or an EMT, you are in no position to render medical help anyway.

This might be true for yourself (which would be sad), but the vast majority of adults are plenty capable of rendering basic first aid to those who are injured.

And just about every military veteran has been trained in some form of basic first aid as well.

And most states have "good Samaritan laws" that protect those who try to help others in emergencies.

 

[peacefulgary]

The warning shot should strike the enemy center mass.

Best answer!

 

[OuTcAsT]

dannyb wrote;

Unless you are a physician or an EMT, you are in no position to render medical help anyway.

If you don't know basic first aid techniques, you should add that to your training regimen. They are skills that could help you save a life, including your own.

 

[Theohazard]

If you fire a "warning shot", then you must not feel threatened enough to be in genuine, rational fear of death or great bodily harm. This is how the courts have viewed it in many situations.

This is the most important reason to NOT fire warning shots, in my opinion. Sure, you can try to make the shots go in a safe direction, but simply by firing a warning shot you're making it clear that you may not have been in fear of your life at that moment, otherwise you would have actually fired at the intruder.

In a self-defense shooting where the intruder is ultimately shot and killed, but warning shots are fired first, it makes the shooter's self-defense claims more tenuous. Warning shots mean the shooter wasn't in enough fear for his life to actually shoot the victim at that moment, therefore it's possible that the whole shooting wasn't justified.

ChasingWhitetail91: Please don't EVER fire a warning shot! It's a terrible idea from a legal standpoint in two ways: First, you may be discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction; and second, by firing a warning shot before you kill someone in self-defense you may be completely undermining that legal claim of self defense.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor am I an expert on the legal use of deadly force. The information in my post is from what I've learned over the years from qualified self-defense instructors and from some of the moderators on this site who are experts.)

 

[ChasingWhitetail91]

I think Brian nailed it. I wouldn't want to fire a warning shot, but if I felt it would prevent me from having to shoot and possibly kill someone, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Sorry, Brian did not say he would fire a warning shot, I myself find it to be a reasonably safe option.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I think Brian nailed it. I wouldn't want to fire a warning shot, but if I felt it would prevent me from having to shoot and possibly kill someone, I would do it in a heartbeat.



Sorry, Brian did not say he would fire a warning shot, I myself find it to be a reasonably safe option.

The warning they get from me would be verbal. I can not imagine a scenario wherein I would fire a warning shot. Certainly not if I'm holed up in my house.

For one thing, I'm not deafening myself and my wife and kids on the off chance that the BG might decide I'm serious and go away. The only 2 ways they're in my house is if they already broken through two doors and if they're close enough for a warning shot, they're working on the third or if we're not sleeping they've broken through one door and there's nothing between us but air. Either way, their chance to reconsider their decisions is past.

 

[zombietactics]

... Brian did not say he would fire a warning shot, I myself find it to be a reasonably safe option.

Why waste everyone's time asking for opinions, if you've already made up your mind, and stubbornly resist the advice that is given by almost every authority in the field?

Nobody of any note recommends warning shots, for a whole host of reasons ranging from legal trouble to poor tactics.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Enough!