Neighbor sees 60 year old attacked and grabs his gun instead of his phone!

[manta49]

Manta49, you seem obsessed about warning shots. I thought we went over this ad nauseum in this thread. Are you still arguing that firing a warning shot is a good idea?

I did not say it was a good idea. I did not say someone should fire a warning shot. I said it was an option if (justified). That's my view if people disagree and think shooting is the only option that's fine.

Three-on-1, that "one" being known to you, your neighbor, and in excess of 60 years old, passes my threshhold.

So what would you do. ?

 

[Theohazard]

Manta49, you seem obsessed about warning shots. I thought we went over this ad nauseum in this thread. Are you still arguing that firing a warning shot is a good idea?

I did not say it was a good idea. I did not say someone should fire a warning shot. I said it was an option if (justified). That's my view if people disagree and think shooting is the only option that's fine.

If you think a warning shot is an option that should be considered, then obviously you think it's a good idea in some circumstances. And I'm simply astounded that you still think that, even after all the people in that other thread told you it was a bad idea. Even Kathy Jackson (pax) said it was a bad idea in that thread, and she's a nationally-known instructor.

Warning shots are a terrible idea from both a legal and a tactical standpoint. I can't believe that you're still advocating for them even after we repeatedly explained in that other thread why they're such a terrible idea.

 

[manta49]

Warning shots are a terrible idea from both a legal and a tactical standpoint. I can't believe that you're still advocating for them even after we repeatedly explained in that other thread why they're such a terrible idea

Again I never said they were a good idea I said they could be an option. Feel free to check my posts and point out where I said they were a good idea. Saying its an option and saying it was a good idea is to different things, try to stop putting words into my mouth. Regards who thinks what I have a mind of my own I decide for myself what would do in that type of situation. I don't care if the Queen of England told me it was or was not a good idea. You have your view I have mine best leaving it at that.

 

[mehavey]

So what would you do. ?

My decision would necessarily be based on what I saw and what I knew.
But it would be made quickly.

The actual/immediate/permanent damage that a beating can inflict is far
beyond anything Hollywood portrays -- and occurs in seconds.

Never ever think differently.

 

[Theohazard]

Again I never said they were a good idea I said they could be an option. Feel free to check my posts and point out where I said they were a good idea. Saying its an option and saying it was a good idea is to different things, try to stop putting words into my mouth.

OK, let me get this straight: You think warning shots are an option that should be considered, but you don't think they're a good idea? Then why should they be an option?

No, it's pretty clear you think they're a good idea at least sometimes, otherwise you wouldn't be saying they're an option. Also, I'm guessing you haven't changed your mind since that other thread where you openly advocated for warning shots, because if you had changed your mind I doubt you would still be saying that they're an option.

You have your view I have mine best leaving it at that.

Except this isn't simply a matter of opinion: The overwhelming consensus among self-defense experts is that warning shots are a bad idea. By advocating for the use of warning shots, you're not only wrong, but you're also being irresponsible; new shooters read this forum all the time and the last thing we should be doing is telling them that warning shots are an option to be considered.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, wouldn't the neighbor who stepped in to help the 60 year old fall under the "good Samaritan" act if he thought this was the only way to save a life?

No!

Good Samaritan laws protect someone who voluntarily renders aid to someone injured or in peril from civil liability to the person helped. And they will not excuse a criminal act of violence.

 

[Mainah]

I've got a 75 year old guy on my road who loves to mouth off to anyone who looks at him the wrong way. If I saw him being attacked by a couple of guys with bats I'd call 911 and tell them to send an ambulance for the guys with the bats. 60 might not be the new 30, but it's hardly elderly.

 

[mehavey]

Then I suggest you wait until age 60, and then invite three 20-something gangbangers to come test that theory

As before, I will decide based on what I know, and what I see.
But I will decide.

"Calling 911 and reporting a beating in progress..." however, is worse
than pointless. It begins to approach that of spectator sport

 

[Theohazard]

"Calling 911 and reporting a beating in progress..." however, is worse
than pointless. It begins to approach that of spectator sport

Calling 911 is far from pointless; it's always a good idea for someone to call 911 as soon as possible, especially if you've drawn or even used your firearm. But I agree that in some situations it makes sense to act first before you take the time to call 911: It all depends on the situation.

I know if I were in the process of being assaulted, I'd much rather have someone come help me before they stopped and called 911. From my personal experience calling 911 on several occasions in two major cities, the typical police response time was about 30 minutes to an hour. That said, I'd still want someone to call 911 as soon as possible, just in case the people helping me weren't enough to stop me from being beaten (or worse).

 

[manta49]

Except this isn't simply a matter of opinion: The overwhelming consensus among self-defense experts is that warning shots are a bad idea. By advocating for the use of warning shots, you're not only wrong, but you're also being irresponsible; new shooters read this forum all the time and the last thing we should be doing is telling them that warning shots are an option to be considered.

Theirs where we differ I would see posts saying that the only option if you draw your firearm to defend yourself is to shoot. Not even because that was the best option to defend yourself, but because it might in some way get you in trouble with the law. I would see that advice as irresponsible no matter who it comes from. My advice would be explore options before shooting someone. And if you are justified in shooting someone then I don't see how you would not be justified firing a warning shot if that's what you decided to do. Again the key word( justification ). As I said I would make my decision if I was in that situation what to do , and it would not be based on me possibly getting in trouble but what I thought was the right thing to do.

 

[Theohazard]

I would see posts saying that the only option if you draw your firearm to defend yourself is to shoot. Not even because that was the best option to defend yourself, but because it might in some way get you in trouble with the law.

I already addressed this several times in the other thread. Either you never bothered to read it or you're intentionally ignoring it in order to make your point.

For the umpteenth time, this is a straw man argument. 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.

I already addressed this here and here and here.

And if you are justified in shooting someone then I don't see how you would not be justified firing a warning shot if that's what you decided to do.

Did you read a single thing any of us posted in the other thread? Did you read any of the countless links we provided? We've explained this many times by now, to the point that pax closed the other thread because we were going in circles. I hate to repeat the same argument in this thread, but I really want to make it clear to any new shooters that might be reading this that it's a terrible idea to fire a warning shot.

 

[mehavey]

I'd still want someone to call 911...

Point taken...

`Should have prefaced w/ Simply calling 911....

I would also offer, however that stopping to dial 911 where you see that seconds count may cause things to become OBE in a hurry. Get someone else to do it in concert w/ whatever action must be taken immediately... or you are going to be in a unending conversation with half your brain & one hand as good as behind your back.

 

[zxcvbob]

"Warning shot" = "I didn't think it was justified to shoot him, but I fired my gun anyway"

The only possible justification I can come up with for a warning shot is to shoot into the dirt for the noise to stop an aggressive dog. In that case it's really more of an improvised firecracker. Still might get you in trouble for illegal use of a firearm, but at least it won't be attempted murder or aggravated assault.

On the topic of involving yourself in someone else's gunfight, I think the question you have to ask yourself is "is this a good day to die?" Sometimes it might be. John 15:13

 

[zxcvbob]

I really want to make it clear to any new shooters that might be reading this that it's a terrible idea to fire a warning shot.

It (might ) be a bad idea, then we agree. That implies that its not always the wrong thing to do. Every situation is different its up to the individual what way they deal with it they will face the consequences good or bad. That's my last word on it on this thread, if you want to discuss it further open another thread.

You don't get to have the last word on this.

You misplaced the word "might". "new shooters that might be reading" does not equal "might be a bad idea."

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by manta49: Every situation is different its up to the individual what way they deal with it they will face the consequences good or bad.

Here are some of the potential consequences of firing warning shots.

First, they just might hit the attacker anyway. That has happened. Do you really want to be in a position of having accidentally shot someone when a knowing and willful act might well have been better in terms of liability?

Second, a bullet fired into the air might hit an innocent party. That has happened. Better for it to stop in someone.

Third, and I did not know this until a few years ago, bullet fired into the ground have been known to reemerge. That has happened. Not a good thing.

I'll stop counting, but do consider whether you want to use up some of your ammunition to "warn" someone.....

 

[pax]

manta,

If you want to keep advocating for warning shots, please do it on some other board -- not here. It's off topic for this thread, and irresponsible on TFL.

pax