point to ponder for the warning shot crowd...

A warning shot presumes that you aren't sufficiently afraid for your safety nor the safety of other victims to risk shooting to neutralize the threat. If I was on a jury and heard testimony about warning shots I'd ask questions. The first question I would ask myself would be "if this guy was so afraid of the bad guy how come he didn't shoot to stop the guy and keep shooting until the gun ran out of bullets?" To me "warning shot" sounds a lot like "bullying intimidation shot".
 
I understand your point about that -- about warning shots being de facto proof that shooting was not in fact justified -- but also there is a different aspect of them that comes to my mind.

What about the notion that a warning shot (done safely, i.e. if the circumstances allow that to be true) can be what compels an otherwise unconvinced BG to halt his advance (like, with a bat or something), and obviates the necessity for actually shooting him?

I can imagine a circumstance in which a BG is getting all riled, talking threats, coming at the gun owner (ostensibly with a visible weapon, for my example), who senses that not only is he being threatened with grievous harm, the guy is really really pissed off, irate, and irrational. STATING that you'll shoot him if he gets any nearer just might not be sufficient to some people in some states of mind. The warning shot might -- not that I am an advocate of warning shots (some here view me as "bloodthirsty," even) -- get through to the BG where nothing else has the ability to do so. The result: the defender doesn't have to actually shoot the BG, bringing all the crap that that brings.

-azurefly
 
reils49 said:
At certain times in Iraq, Marines are required to fire "warning shots" before using deadly force and I never understood why.
Click to expand...
That depends on the unit "running" the AO. Some commands like it, some don't. Our policy was not to use them; however after several weeks I began to realize that some people (especially when driving) simply were not paying attention to the big vehicle with the big gun pointed at them warning them to back off.
I used warning shots in some situations - a single 5.56 at your car is better than 20 .50 cal rounds.

However, what's good for Iraq sometimes doesn't translate to our lives here. We are not bound by deadly-force statutes, nor do we technically have to worry about every round that leaves the weapon. Apples and oranges.

If you choose to use a warning shot, you need to be aware that you are leaving yourself open to criminal/civil litigation on the grounds that you used deadly force in a situation that you obviously did not believe warranted deadly force being used. There are situations where a warning shot would be appropriate - just make sure you think about whether or not your decision is worth what you're going to have to put up with after the fact.

Pretty much just like any other time you decide to take that weapon out of its holster.

Depending on your State, you may have ZERO protection under the law for hitting someone other than the person you are trying to hit.


Twin1911S said:
...you have to acount for all 26 shots that you fire when your not paying that much attention your really just fighting for you life. and we can get introuble for discharging in public then what good is a CHL again. are you just suppose to show them your gun and hope that they run away or are you suppose to pistol whip them?
Click to expand...
You are judged by the quality and content of your thoughts and by your ability to bring them to bear in open forum.
Simple questions usually mean the poster has chosen to either not put a modicum of thought into his/her question or to not put much effort into finding the answer prior to posting.
Read twice, post once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top