That Ain't Right

Status
Not open for further replies.
Homeowner said:
And so I fired four warning shots into the grass
Click to expand...

There is another thread in Tactics & Training about a situation similar to this.

Warning shots are never, ever a good idea.

This is interesting:

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes.
...
That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet.
Click to expand...

Never heard of this. Anyone live somewhere where it is used?
 
Is it ****ty? YES. But as Sefner said, warning shots are NEVER NEVER NEVER a good idea. He should have back up went in his house and had the gang attempted to attack or get in his house, BAM open fire with the law on your side. BTW is he allowed to own an AK???
 
i think it's rediculous you can have 20+ people come on YOUR property and threaten the lives of your family and yourself, and for protecting your family you go to jail. I would think if you were facing a mob of that size anyways with everyone shouting they were going to kill you and your family, you would have the right to use lethal force, right? I mean if there saying there going to, and with 20+ vs. 1 they clearly have the ability, how would you not be justified?
 
To Sefner, Hope I understood your question correctly. I just read in the Montgomery Advertiser (Montgomery, Alabama) where they are acquiring their second ShotSpotter -

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20109040326

I gathered from the article, they are pleased with the one system they have deployed in one of the bad neighborhoods. It has reportedly reduced the number of gunshots fired dramatically. In July 2009 they had 176 shots in the targeted neighborhood. This past August 2010, they reported only 43 shots fired. I bet there are some bad places in the USA where either number would be very low.

Cost is $200,000.00 per system.
 
lamarw,

You understood correctly, I was interested in reports from other localities where the system is used.

Do you have any more information on how the system operates? Is it constantly recording? If so, what civil rights issues (if any) has that raised amongst residents? I would imagine that it passively monitors ambient and looking for a signature that sounds something like a gunshot, but I'm not sure.

nbrown said:
i think it's rediculous you can have 20+ people come on YOUR property and threaten the lives of your family and yourself, and for protecting your family you go to jail. I would think if you were facing a mob of that size anyways with everyone shouting they were going to kill you and your family, you would have the right to use lethal force, right? I mean if there saying there going to, and with 20+ vs. 1 they clearly have the ability, how would you not be justified?
Click to expand...

The argument is mildly complex. The first assumption is that any use of a firearm is considered lethal force because it could result in lethal injury to a person. The second is that if one had the time opportunity and capacity to fire a warning shot that they were not truly in mortal danger or harm's way. Thus, the argument goes, lethal force (the warning shot) was used even though the shooter was not in danger that would justify lethal force.

I hope that makes sense. To many people in the self defense business, people on this board (myself included), and police, this argument is very compelling. Not perfect by any means (in logical reasoning and in premise validity) but very compelling.

Now here is why it's not perfect: In this situation, the gang fulfilling the three "sides" of the "threat triangle" (excuse the quotes, I despise metaphors in communication):

Ability: There are 20 of them, all young and fit, possibly armed.
Intent: Verbal threats, and subjects have a history of violence (gangs), and the house has been purposefully compromised (from the article it sounds like the surrounded it, even sneaking up on the homeowner from a corner of the house)
Opportunity: They have surrounded the house from the outside, outnumber the homeowner, and are again possibly armed.

Thus, by the measurement of the commonly used "threat triangle", lethal force was justified. The problem is that the homeowner, by his actions, made it apparent that he himself did not feel threatened enough to use lethal force even though he, by the first assumption of why warning shots are bad, did actually use lethal force. This odd contradiction is why the warning shot argument is imperfect.

Again, I hope I'm making sense here. Apologies if I'm not.

My speculation is that had he actually shot someone (namely the person closest to his house or the people who came around the corner of the house) that he would not have been charged with any crime. But this is speculation.
 
Last edited:
With the disparity of force it sounds like if he shot one or more of them that it would have been justified, and yet the good man still found a way to end it without bloodshed. That's very commendable and yet will be punished most likely, There's something not right about that.
 
Assuming the facts are as reported, I wish the homeowner luck. However, I'm wondering why he decided to go outside with an AK47? If you've got multiple guys coming after you and threatening to kill you, I would think that being inside the house would provide you with a much better defensive advantage.

In addition to the defensive advantage, it would help you legally as well. In many states, the mere act of breaking and entering a home is enough to create a presumption of reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Not sure about NY where this happened; but in most other states, this would go a long ways towards avoiding the legal debate over whether his warning shots were reasonable.

I applaud people who will stand up and do the right thing; but it pays to do it as smart as possible.
 
Agree that warning shots are not a good idea, but the shotspotter system in the area adds another legal dimension. A lawyer would argue that when the second group of gang bangers joined in, it escalated the situation and by activating the gunshot tracker system, he was signaling to the cops for help in the fastest way possible (tracking system + gun shot = cops enroute NOW). The argument could be made that he was not intending harm, only trying to instill a sense of urgency in law enforcement.

Anyhoo, devils advocate time over :eek: . Gotta agree again with the no warning shots. There where better options available.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
However, I'm wondering why he decided to go outside with an AK47? If you've got multiple guys coming after you and threatening to kill you, I would think that being inside the house would provide you with a much better defensive advantage.
Click to expand...

This support for the idea that if you fire a warning shot, you did not feel that you were in enough danger to use lethal force and thus should not have discharged your firearm.

THEZACHARIAS said:
Agree that warning shots are not a good idea, but the shotspotter system in the area adds another legal dimension. A lawyer would argue that when the second group of gang bangers joined in, it escalated the situation and by activating the gunshot tracker system, he was signaling to the cops for help in the fastest way possible (tracking system + gun shot = cops enroute NOW). The argument could be made that he was not intending harm, only trying to instill a sense of urgency in law enforcement.
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting and insightful comment. Unfortunately, because the guy already talked to police and said he fired it as a "warning shot" he looses some legal ground in this aspect. But I do like how you look at it. Never even thought the system might be used that way. I wish we all had a button we could press that would summon the police to use :p
 
If the po-po can respond to the "shotspotter" "within minutes", why didn't they respond to his wife's phone call in the same length of time? Makes the article sound like an ad or propaganda piece for Shotspotter.
 
Sefner- i understand how firing a warning shot is considered using lethal force and how it would make it seem to a jury that he wasn't afraid for his life. I think though that he did it in a safe enough way (shooting into the lawn), (i don't think warning shots are a good idea btw), and if he resolved it by doing that instead of killing someone, i would think he should have been given a pat on the back, not put in jail. I understand how thats not the way the laws are though. Too bad we don't have common sense laws
 
Well, I am just happy I was able to answer you initial question. I doubt I will be of much help with your follow-on questions. I am not familiar with the technology, but I doubt it is as sophisticated as the Army's Firefinder technology which is more than a decade old (actually a couple of decades).

I doubt the ShotSpotter would violate anyone's civil liberties. It is far less aggressive than cameras. I am sure the sensors are placed in public locals. As another comparison, we all know law enforcement has resently be allowed by the courts to use GPS bugs on private vehicles to track suspects.

By the way, I am about 45 miles from Montgomery. My residents is in the sticks and on a huge lake. Dove season just opened and Deer season is coming up. A ShotSpotter would go nuts in my AO. The only laws you have to follow are the hunting regulations and not hunting within a 100 yards of a building or improved road. LOL The worse crimes around here are rednecks using roads signs for zeroing-in their hunting gun.
 
Another incident that indicates that training is a good thing for the armed citizen. What might seem reasonable, warning shots, are frought with difficulty.

I recall a story of a coin dealer. He gets held up. Pulls a gun. BG flees. Dealer chases him and runs up to the BG's car and shoots up the tire.

Dealer gets arrested.
 
Did the perp get arrested? What was the violation by the coin dealer? For example - Was he a felon with a gun? (citing the worst case senario). It is hard to judge without all the facts. This is why we have Judges and Juries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top