To warn or not to warn? That is the question.
- Thread starter sliponby
- Start date
- Status
This question comes up here every few months and the comments so far are typical in that they are either second hand or from individuals that have never had to even pull their weapon.
I have had to draw down three times two of which I have talked about here before.
One situation I had children with me and two individuals decided to enter the family cabin. I was cooking dinner and had my .38 derringer in my shirt pocket. I was only a few feet from the door and heard a step in the porch so I was able to catch the lead individual with my derringer under his chin with the hammer pulled back. The words I said to him can not be written here but I am reasonably sure that he pooped in his pants.
The other time that I will talk about I was down at the local hardware store with my 61 Studebaker truck packed up for a trip to the cabin. I was just leaving the store and some individual was messing with my truck. The individual had not opened up the locked truck door yet so I drawed my weapon and ordered him away from my truck. I had more weapons locked up in the cab so had he managed to get the door open I would not have yelled but shot instead as he would then have access to my 624 and I just had my Davis .38 derringer in my shirt pocket.
Each use of force situation is different so what one does in one situation will of necessity be different.
I have had to draw down three times two of which I have talked about here before.
One situation I had children with me and two individuals decided to enter the family cabin. I was cooking dinner and had my .38 derringer in my shirt pocket. I was only a few feet from the door and heard a step in the porch so I was able to catch the lead individual with my derringer under his chin with the hammer pulled back. The words I said to him can not be written here but I am reasonably sure that he pooped in his pants.
The other time that I will talk about I was down at the local hardware store with my 61 Studebaker truck packed up for a trip to the cabin. I was just leaving the store and some individual was messing with my truck. The individual had not opened up the locked truck door yet so I drawed my weapon and ordered him away from my truck. I had more weapons locked up in the cab so had he managed to get the door open I would not have yelled but shot instead as he would then have access to my 624 and I just had my Davis .38 derringer in my shirt pocket.
Each use of force situation is different so what one does in one situation will of necessity be different.
Uhhh yeah.. See my post above.
If the shooting is justified the shot placement is not relevant. If the shooting is not justified then placement can be a problem.
If someone has their back to me and is stabbing my wife, shooting them in the back is fine.
If they are running away cause i presented my gun and i shoot them in the back...not so much.
Its about the justification to shoot not the shot placement
A pause for the COZ
New member
Nope!! Not gona do it. This is the most effective combo I have ever used.
That light is just too good. Will turn night into day.
They wont know I have a gun on them unless I tell them or have to use it.
The light is too bright for them to see me at all.
I found just carrying a flash light. I never felt proficient being able to light and shoot at the same time. I am a two handed shooter. This just fits how I can be most effective.
Now I may add a hand held tactical light and drop it if I need to draw.
Seems like that is extra work.
But Having tromped around my sheds with a gun drawn kinda sucks too.
So may still be a work in progress.
Last edited:
Do you mean like traversing a closed and padlocked gate/fence before getting to the front or back door, then defeating the doorknob, deadbolt and chain on one or both of those, or doing battle with a VERY aggressive holly bush before bashing in a double-pane window through which to gain ingress? Would that constitute a reason for believing they had entered forcibly?
If I didn't or haven't let them in, or given them the keys with which to do so themselves, then short of access to a working Star Trek transporter, I don't know how they've made it inside my residence UNforcibly.
Some people may be okay with making it easier, but I'm not among them. If the only for an intruder to gain entry to my residence is by violent physical force, I dare say I'm safe by the "reasonable man test" in presuming that he's not yet had his fill of doing violence, and has no hesitation about continuing his mission.
As Frank Ettin and others have been so quick to remind me, I'm not an attorney. But neither am I without access to them. Where I live, I AM still justified in using lethal force to defend my property. I'm betting that an intruder in my house will be reasonably regarded as having arrived there only through unlawful and forcible means, and is a threat to more than mere possessions.
...Unless their name is Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, etc...or maybe SANTA CLAUS, but to get down MY chimney, he'd have to be a shape-shifter, so I'm thinkin' not....
Last edited:
This is another can of worms.
Each situation is going to be unique and you have the unenviable task of analyzing the situation in literally a split second's time.
I have mentioned in several threads on this forum that I have had to draw 3 times in roughly 45 years, and each time the situation was quickly defused.
However, given a situation where you or someone else is about to be shot, stabbed or what have you, I think it's insane to yell anything. You just take your shot without thinking about it. It's that simple.
Yelling a warning is only going to work on a "reasonable" person, and I am of the opinion that anyone threatening violence/death on another person, or on PCP, etc. is not "reasonable."
Each situation is going to be unique and you have the unenviable task of analyzing the situation in literally a split second's time.
I have mentioned in several threads on this forum that I have had to draw 3 times in roughly 45 years, and each time the situation was quickly defused.
However, given a situation where you or someone else is about to be shot, stabbed or what have you, I think it's insane to yell anything. You just take your shot without thinking about it. It's that simple.
Yelling a warning is only going to work on a "reasonable" person, and I am of the opinion that anyone threatening violence/death on another person, or on PCP, etc. is not "reasonable."
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have been to several different schools with different instructors with different backgrounds. My take from all of them is this. Given that you are about to engage a suspect with lethal force, the threshhold of eminence of peril has been crossed and you have determined that the bad guy needs to be stopped and needs to be stopped NOW. Yelling STOP STOP STOP or whatever other verbiage does nothing to help you put bullets on target and may, in fact, put you at a significant tactical disadvantage by drawing attention to yourself (assuming you are not already the intended victim) before you have a chance to fire.
If you are in your home and dealing with an identified intruder, I see where giving yourself away can be a very bad idea.
Where it may come in handy in regard to the current problem you are trying to solve is by garnering attention from others in public from whom you may feel you do or will need immediate help.
I have heard the lectures how yelling STOP STOP STOP or other such phrases is supposed to aid you legally for the after shooting analysis, drawing witness attention before you fire, demonstrating that you acted with all due prudence and only fired after you had determined lethal force needed to be applied, yaddy yaddy yaddy lawyer-speak. Logically, this makes sense.
However, one instructor gave us two examples of which he was aware of situations where the witnesses were confused. Witness confusion is a very real and salient issue. In the two cases, the witnesses thought the actual bad guy was yelling STOP STOP STOP and that the actual good guy was the aggressor bad guy. Basically, the yelling of STOP STOP STOP is what drew their attention (as intended), but because they were not already witnessing the situation, they did not understand the events they were seeing and misidentified who was the bad guy.
So the point here was that you can't count on witnesses to get the information correct.
Bottom line? Yell warnings when you think it is to your tactical advantage to resolve a lethal force situation. That is the Number 1 goal at that moment and undoubtedly you are firing to save a life and saving a life is what matters most. If it does not benefit you and/or the intended invictim(s) in saving lives, then don't do it. If you are doing it to try to protect yourself from legal consequences after-the-fact, that is nice, but not if it ends up costing you your life because it put you at a tactical disadvantage, then the notion is stupid. Additionally, witnesses cannot be counted on providing an accurate assessment of what happened.
If you are in your home and dealing with an identified intruder, I see where giving yourself away can be a very bad idea.
Where it may come in handy in regard to the current problem you are trying to solve is by garnering attention from others in public from whom you may feel you do or will need immediate help.
I have heard the lectures how yelling STOP STOP STOP or other such phrases is supposed to aid you legally for the after shooting analysis, drawing witness attention before you fire, demonstrating that you acted with all due prudence and only fired after you had determined lethal force needed to be applied, yaddy yaddy yaddy lawyer-speak. Logically, this makes sense.
However, one instructor gave us two examples of which he was aware of situations where the witnesses were confused. Witness confusion is a very real and salient issue. In the two cases, the witnesses thought the actual bad guy was yelling STOP STOP STOP and that the actual good guy was the aggressor bad guy. Basically, the yelling of STOP STOP STOP is what drew their attention (as intended), but because they were not already witnessing the situation, they did not understand the events they were seeing and misidentified who was the bad guy.
So the point here was that you can't count on witnesses to get the information correct.
Bottom line? Yell warnings when you think it is to your tactical advantage to resolve a lethal force situation. That is the Number 1 goal at that moment and undoubtedly you are firing to save a life and saving a life is what matters most. If it does not benefit you and/or the intended invictim(s) in saving lives, then don't do it. If you are doing it to try to protect yourself from legal consequences after-the-fact, that is nice, but not if it ends up costing you your life because it put you at a tactical disadvantage, then the notion is stupid. Additionally, witnesses cannot be counted on providing an accurate assessment of what happened.
zincwarrior
New member
Warnings are situational. Public is an excellent example of that.
How do you know its a threat in public until its actually occurring? Or to be more clear, someone comes up to you looking suspicious. Is he a thief? Is he a panhandler? Is he a potential kidnapper?
The warning is to keep them back to avoid having to draw in the first place in a situation where thats potentially a very bad idea.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Kosh75287:
In all state,s the resident is given a presumption that unlawful entry constitutes an imminent threat of serious harm, thought the conditions vary somewhat. But as in the case of all such presumptions, it is rebuttable.
Should the evidence (forensic, earwitness, the testimony of the persons who were in your home) indicate otherwise (and the burden of proof for civil litigation differs from that for criminal prosecution), the use of deadly force would not be lawfully justified.
You cannot lawfully punish someone for that they may have done. The issue is whether you have a basis for a reasonable belief that it is immediately necessary to act to prevent something from happening.
That may or may not be true, depending upon who they are and why they are there.
In all state,s the resident is given a presumption that unlawful entry constitutes an imminent threat of serious harm, thought the conditions vary somewhat. But as in the case of all such presumptions, it is rebuttable.
Should the evidence (forensic, earwitness, the testimony of the persons who were in your home) indicate otherwise (and the burden of proof for civil litigation differs from that for criminal prosecution), the use of deadly force would not be lawfully justified.
I would never even consider trying to detain someone.
It is.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with justifying the use of force.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by A pause for the COZ:
You do not want to expose your firearm unless you have reason to believe that you may have to use it, and you do NOT want to point it at anyone unless you have a reason to believe that force (deadly force, in most states, including Minnesota) is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The evidence you will need for for justification is a lot lower inside your home than it is "around your sheds" or "around the homestead".
"Investigating something suspicious" outdoors does not meet the test.
Those are just the legal reasons. One really should consider the possibility that someone, good or bad, who sees you walking around at night with a gun in hand just might shoot you.
There have been extensive discussions of the pros and cons of weapon mounted lights here, and they are beyond the scope of this thread.
Personally, I would never risk committing a crime because I believed that the likelihood that it will become known is low.
Look for some videos and try it.
Hardly a reason for taking a such risk.
It sure does! It is a BAD idea.
You do not want to expose your firearm unless you have reason to believe that you may have to use it, and you do NOT want to point it at anyone unless you have a reason to believe that force (deadly force, in most states, including Minnesota) is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The evidence you will need for for justification is a lot lower inside your home than it is "around your sheds" or "around the homestead".
"Investigating something suspicious" outdoors does not meet the test.
Those are just the legal reasons. One really should consider the possibility that someone, good or bad, who sees you walking around at night with a gun in hand just might shoot you.
Old Marksman, in the event that a prosecutor tries to make hay of the fact that a BG was shot in the back, would a defense attorney not be able to argue that it is possible for the BG to turn as the trigger is being pressed, not giving the defender the reaction time to stop his action?
kilimanjaro
New member
"If your firearm is already drawn and pointed at the suspect your reaction time is much less than 1 second.
You can test out your reaction time using a shot timer at the range with both a holstered and unholstered gun."
I agree that is probably the reaction time at the range where you are testing for reaction time. It's even the reaction time at high noon in the streets of Dodge City in 1876 where two pistoleros face off in a duel.
This is a completely unexpected and unplanned event. You or a companion are the victim of a surprise attack by an aggressor.
In a semi-dark location, with an abnormal person reacting to your actions and commands, furtive movements, aggression, one or more victims, 'helpful' onlookers, and even normalcy bias, reaction time is at best a crapshoot. Tunnel vision is not your friend.
You can test out your reaction time using a shot timer at the range with both a holstered and unholstered gun."
I agree that is probably the reaction time at the range where you are testing for reaction time. It's even the reaction time at high noon in the streets of Dodge City in 1876 where two pistoleros face off in a duel.
This is a completely unexpected and unplanned event. You or a companion are the victim of a surprise attack by an aggressor.
In a semi-dark location, with an abnormal person reacting to your actions and commands, furtive movements, aggression, one or more victims, 'helpful' onlookers, and even normalcy bias, reaction time is at best a crapshoot. Tunnel vision is not your friend.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by TailGator:
This is an excerpt from Defending the Self Defense Case, written by attorney Lisa J. Steele for NACDL, which has been reproduced with permission, and linked in posts from Frank Ettin.
I should think that the discussion would best be supported by the testimony of an expert witness.
Sure--that's mentioned here and there in the literature.
This is an excerpt from Defending the Self Defense Case, written by attorney Lisa J. Steele for NACDL, which has been reproduced with permission, and linked in posts from Frank Ettin.
I should think that the discussion would best be supported by the testimony of an expert witness.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There are simulations of the shooting of the back scenario in SD situation by forensic medical experts. A good defense lawyer should be able to dig those up and if necessary bring in an expert (bye bye to your money though).
A pause for the COZ
New member
Posted by A pause for the COZ:
Quote:
Nope!! Not gona do it. This is the most effective combo I have ever used.
That light is just too good. Will turn night into day.
There have been extensive discussions of the pros and cons of weapon mounted lights here, and they are beyond the scope of this thread.
Quote:
They wont know I have a gun on them unless I tell them or have to use it.
The light is too bright for them to see me at all.
Personally, I would never risk committing a crime because I believed that the likelihood that it will become known is low.
Quote:
I found just carrying a flash light. I never felt proficient being able to light and shoot at the same time. I am a two handed shooter. This just fits how I can be most effective.
Look for some videos and try it.
Quote:
Now I may add a hand held tactical light and drop it if I need to draw.
Seems like that is extra work.
Hardly a reason for taking a such risk.
Quote:
But Having tromped around my sheds with a gun drawn kinda sucks too.
It sure does! It is a BAD idea.
You do not want to expose your firearm unless you have reason to believe that you may have to use it, and you do NOT want to point it at anyone unless you have a reason to believe that force (deadly force, in most states, including Minnesota) is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The evidence you will need for for justification is a lot lower inside your home than it is "around your sheds" or "around the homestead".
"Investigating something suspicious" outdoors does not meet the test.
Those are just the legal reasons. One really should consider the possibility that someone, good or bad, who sees you walking around at night with a gun in hand just might shoot you.
OldMarksman:
Yea the more I think about it the more I dont like what I am doing. You may have a convert.
Quote:
Nope!! Not gona do it. This is the most effective combo I have ever used.
That light is just too good. Will turn night into day.
There have been extensive discussions of the pros and cons of weapon mounted lights here, and they are beyond the scope of this thread.
Quote:
They wont know I have a gun on them unless I tell them or have to use it.
The light is too bright for them to see me at all.
Personally, I would never risk committing a crime because I believed that the likelihood that it will become known is low.
Quote:
I found just carrying a flash light. I never felt proficient being able to light and shoot at the same time. I am a two handed shooter. This just fits how I can be most effective.
Look for some videos and try it.
Quote:
Now I may add a hand held tactical light and drop it if I need to draw.
Seems like that is extra work.
Hardly a reason for taking a such risk.
Quote:
But Having tromped around my sheds with a gun drawn kinda sucks too.
It sure does! It is a BAD idea.
You do not want to expose your firearm unless you have reason to believe that you may have to use it, and you do NOT want to point it at anyone unless you have a reason to believe that force (deadly force, in most states, including Minnesota) is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The evidence you will need for for justification is a lot lower inside your home than it is "around your sheds" or "around the homestead".
"Investigating something suspicious" outdoors does not meet the test.
Those are just the legal reasons. One really should consider the possibility that someone, good or bad, who sees you walking around at night with a gun in hand just might shoot you.
OldMarksman:
Yea the more I think about it the more I dont like what I am doing. You may have a convert.
In working as an expert witness for over 20 years in Canada. If I have one piece of advice to give, it is do not spill your guts to the responding Officers. The Police do not do that, after a shooting, take a page from their book.
So you need an Expert Witness, and a competent Criminal Lawyer.
So much in criminal charges is tied to state of mind. There is 5 pages right there, worked nights, awakened from a deep sleep.
The massive effect Adrenalin has on a human, he should have walked out of Court a free man.
When I ran my training School in Ontario Canada (for Security/Armored Vehicle Guards/ATM Employees/Police) Police was simple, more or less North America wide "Police don't move" My initial command for Security "STOP I have a Gun" used once by one ATM Guard. He was found not guilty, the training worked, one round straight through the heart.
Your blood pressure right after a shooting incident? Through the roof. In the 100s. Your hands vibrate, you could not spit for $100.00. Your hearing is toast.
You have no idea how many rounds you fired, you do not realize you changed magazines!
Posters who have noted speaking being detrimental? In a confrontation? It can be used to your advantage also. When working on the doors of Clubs in Liverpool UK, in the early 60s (Yes a long time ago) a question like "What time is your last bus?" as they start to speak, you hit.
It is not a sport you know. Just a part time job, one you want to go home from.
- Status