My brother in action

"Warning shots"?

Did your brother intentionally fire "warning shots," or did he just miss?

Here is proof that being armed and trained and alert works.
Click to expand...
Your brother got the "armed" part, but if he missed, I'd say he needs more training, and if he intentionally fired "warning" shots at a guy pointing a gun at him, he DEFINITELY needs more training. And if he was escorting a woman to her car and three thugs got the jump on him even when he was open carrying, with all respect I think he could work on the "alert" part a bit, too.
 
From the lawyer: "But this is a situation where my clients were in fear for their lives, and the warning shots fired prevented a more horrific crime from occurring.

Sounds like CYA legalese. The armed citizen probably missed but he did well, IMO.
 
Warning shots....

I don't get the whole "I'll fire a warning shot." mindset some license holders or gun owners have.
My state has very specific training standards for armed security officers; NO WARNING SHOTS. :mad:
You are not going to scare or intimidate a violent thug. You may injury or kill another bystander then face criminal/civil charges for it.
Guns & ammunition should only be used for lethal force. Not to fire warnings. Not to "wound" or "shoot the weapon out of their hand" :rolleyes:.

Now, if you shoot & miss a violent subject that's different. But I would not go around thinking "warning shots" are okay or a good plan.
 
But I would not go around thinking "warning shots" are okay or a good plan.
Click to expand...
Those bullets have to go somewhere. They don't just vanish into thin air.

That somewhere could be a bystander.

This seems to be a story about a situation in which luck played as large a part as training.
 
Sounds like CYA legalese. The armed citizen probably missed but he did well, IMO.
Click to expand...
Did well is open for interpretation. Trying to scare someone with a drawn gun by firing warning shots or missing is not good. He was lucky at best.

Those bullets have to go somewhere. They don't just vanish into thin air.

That somewhere could be a bystander.
Click to expand...
Good point and a reason to seek training or implementing proper practice of training received.
 
2 of 3 bad guys are in jail. Armed citizen was uninjured and not in police custody. Sounds like victory to me.

The "warning shot" thing was probably put out there by his lawyer. I grew up not far from New Orleans and I understand the political-demographic landscape very well and the reasons why he would use a phrase like "warning shot" even if it was a miss.

If he did miss his shots, well that's the real world for you. It's not like Wednesday night at the range.
 
The "warning shot" thing was probably put out there by his lawyer.
Click to expand...
I'd worry about the competency of his lawyer. Warning shots are universally regarded as a no-no. Had that shot hurt someone or destroyed property, the client would be open to all sorts of liability.
 
As a rule of thumb, its a good idea to let your lawyer do your talking for you, especially to the press. When a lawyer speaks to the press, he's not speaking to a judge, a prosecutor, or to the police. I don't think it would be a good idea for anyone involved in a shooting to talk on record to the press themselves.
 
Here is an account of a situation in Houston that really went the other way.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/29/police-south-texas-store-owner-arrested-after-killing-robber/

The store owner was arrested and is in jail for shooting and killing a man who stole a 12 pack of beer from his store.

I am sure more will come out but it seems pretty clear that when gunplay is used to prevent theft, there are significant legal challenges that must be met before the shooter can expect to be treated as anything other than a murderer.
 
Here is an account of a situation in Houston that really went the other way.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/...illing-robber/

The store owner was arrested and is in jail for shooting and killing a man who stole a 12 pack of beer from his store.
Click to expand...

Big difference in this story is the "robber" was an unarmed thief.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/...d-After-Beer-Thief-Shot-Killed-225712051.html
Click to expand...

Appears from both reports (your source and mine) the guy was trying to steal beer and the store owner shot him.
 
I've talked to my brother and the fact that two out three of the bad guys are in jail, he and his female companion weren't hurt, the robbery was unsuccessful, and no one (not even the bad guys) got hut is just a blessing.
Things could have gone very bad.

Remember, we carry our guns to defend ourselves, our family, and our property, not so that we can shoot people.
 
A gun is a tool for self-defense; whatever works. What the OP's brother did apparently worked. Maybe it wouldn't work in all situations. Maybe the OP's brother sensed something in the attackers that indicated hesitance on their part once the gun was pulled and fired? Who knows, I wasn't there.
 
You can't really judge a situation like that from the warm comfort of your office or living room.

Only the shooter knows what he saw, heard, and felt. And, seeing as he survived, as did all parties involved, he did okay.

Sounds to me that the, "warning shot" part was the lawyer's construct.
 
Things could have gone very bad.
Click to expand...
Agree and the results are the best that could have been hoped for. No one hurt or seriously injured and the bad guys are in jail or being sought.

Remember, we carry our guns to defend ourselves, our family, and our property, not so that we can shoot people.
Click to expand...
OF course they are for SD, but I don't think people intended for your brother to shoot someone. Just going by the story so far, he may not have done the right thing or he may have. Still lacking confirmation on details to know for sure. Just glad it ended well.

I guess the main concern is the idea that someone might get from wrong information or lack of information in a story like this. I wouldn't want someone to think he should have fired warning shots, should have fired at the robbers, or even drawn his weapon to begin with.

That is what makes this statement a good one:
What the OP's brother did apparently worked. Maybe it wouldn't work in all situations. Maybe the OP's brother sensed something in the attackers that indicated hesitance on their part once the gun was pulled and fired? Who knows, I wasn't there.
Click to expand...

IMO most of us are going by the details we read in the beginning leading some to believe mistakes were made. If they were in fact warning shots at someone pointing a gun in his direction it was a mistake but he would know it and not make it again. If the gun was not pointed in a direction then it is subject to interpretation of an event that we were not present. His decision either way.

Due to the need to protect information and your innocent brother, there is no need to pry into things that need to remain sealed until his lawyer states otherwise.;)

Once again, Glad it ended well.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top