To warn or not to warn? That is the question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As others have said, there's no easy answer. It's dependent entirely on the situation. I lock all of my doors at home (including my bedroom door) for two reasons:
1) I would much rather someone decide that going through multiple locked doors is not worth their time and leave than have to use force. Force is dangerous for both parties and I would just as soon not have to deal with the legal and emotional trauma that even a justified use of force brings.
2) I want as much time as possible in the event that a use of force is unavoidable.

In that case, there's likely to be no warning, or if I have time, the racking of a semi-auto rifle bolt in place of a warning.

In other situations with a gun or knife, the threat to me would be so obvious that no warning should be needed. Other threats such as, say, a robber armed with a baseball bat who is a decent distance away from me and not immediately within reach of anybody, may get more room for warning. That's all situation dependent though, and I'm sure I can't accurately predict exactly how I'll act in such a case.

I don't CCW yet (have a number of months before I can get my permit) but I do keep them loaded around the house and in the car. These are good questions to ask.
 
I've always held the belief that if I've drawn my weapon, I've already made the decision to use it.
Click to expand...

I'm glad the police don't use your threshhold. I'm sorry every suspicious noise at night either turns out to be a dangerous criminal, or that you would only draw a weapon after firmly establishing that as fact.


We'd all like to thing of the bad guy as a large ugly man who is dirty and stinks, and wears a black mask, and a gun in his hand, entering through your window in the dead of night, so we can shoot him without reservation, but when you come home from church on Sunday afternoon, and surprise two 15 year old girls with no visible weapons who are getting ready to run off with your laptop, you might decide that use of your drawn weapon in not warranted.

You have to use your head in each individual situation. The words "always" and "never" should be used sparingly.
 
Posted by TimSr:
I'm glad the police don't use your threshhold.
Click to expand...
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in my state the thresholds law enfacement officers and for civilians are not the same.

...when you come home from church on Sunday afternoon, and surprise two 15 year old girls with no visible weapons who are getting ready to run off with your laptop, you might decide that use of your drawn weapon in not warranted.
Click to expand...
The important question at that point would be whether your drawing of the weapon had been lawfully justifiable in the first place.

In your occupied home? You could make a good case for it.

In most states, one may not lawfully display a weapon unless there is reason to believe that the use of deadly force would be justified. Again, that may not apply to law enforcement.

Of course, situations can change very quickly.

Back to surprising an intruder upon returning home: best to get out quickly and summon help. You could be ambushed by someone whose presence is not obvious, and if someone else has already called the police, you would risk being misidentified and dealt with unpleasantly by first responders.
 
I'm glad the police don't use your threshhold. I'm sorry every suspicious noise at night either turns out to be a dangerous criminal, or that you would only draw a weapon after firmly establishing that as fact.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about hearing my front door get kicked in at 2:00am. Sure, I'd grab a handgun and check out what was going on. What I was referring to, or at least trying, was drawing from concealment. Like maybe while at the store, or fueling up my car, or walking down the sidewalk, something like that. If you draw a weapon if someone looks at you funny, you'll find yourself charged with brandishing, behind bars, waiting for someone to bail you out. Or at least in my state you will.
 
I would warn if possible. I don't want to shoot anyone or deal with the consequences.

However, back to the OP -- "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" and "STOP!" bring to mind two completely different scenarios for me. In the former the subject is already shown an willingness to hurt or kill someone by brandishing a weapon. In the later I envision some kid breaking into a house and not being aware someone is home. I'd be less likely to warn in the first scenario.
 
Posted by Mike38:
What I was referring to, or at least trying, was drawing from concealment. Like maybe while at the store, or fueling up my car, or walking down the sidewalk, something like that. If you draw a weapon if someone looks at you funny, you'll find yourself charged with brandishing, behind bars, waiting for someone to bail you out. Or at least in my state you will.
Click to expand...
There are no jurisdictions in which the display of a weapon would be justified because someone "looks funny" or may appear to be acting suspiciously.

So yes, the would be serous legal risk.

I would be equally concerned about the risk of getting shot.
 
Common sense applies. If the threat to my life or someone else's is IMMINENT...meaning seconds count...I am going to end the threat, not warn it.

If the threat is less than imminent where a warning won't put myself or others in further danger, of course I will warn.
 
I realize some will respond that it depends on the situation - and I tend to agree. For example, if the threat has his back to you and doesn't see you, you might not shoot him in the back without warning and giving him the opportunity to stand down. Unless he was pointing a gun at your loved ones- maybe?
Click to expand...

Obvious response.

The verbal warning is for liability reasons, you told him to stop, he continued to come toward you, you feared for your life. BANG
 
It is going to depend on the situation. Personally, if an incident occurs inside of my home, I'm probably not going to warn anybody with a weapon in hand, or anybody who would actively approach me.

If, as somebody said, I wake up mid day to some teenager trying to steal my dvd player when he believes nobody is home, it would be a different situation.

I would recommend limiting a warning to two syllables. Something very simple and fast to yell like "DROP IT!" I have found that in those extremely critical and stressful moments when your heart is racing and you don't yet know if the BG is going to be compliant, your mouth can seem to fall apart.
 
Posted by 101combatvet:
The verbal warning is for liability reasons, you told him to stop, he continued to come toward you, you feared for your life. BANG
Click to expand...
Your having given a verbal warning will neither provide evidence that you had a reasonable basis for believing that you were seriously endangered, nor will it show that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary to defend yourself against such danger.
 
Posted by Ton:
Personally, if an incident occurs inside of my home, I'm probably not going to warn anybody with a weapon in hand, or anybody who would actively approach me.
Click to expand...
Think at least twice before resorting to the threat or use of force should someone "actively approach" you, unless a number of other very important conditions exist.
 
Your having given a verbal warning will neither provide evidence that you had a reasonable basis for believing that you were seriously endangered, nor will it show that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary to defend yourself against such danger.
Click to expand...

I was mentioning why it was taught, I never said I would partake in such activity. With that being said, under certain situations (depending on the state) it might help your case if it went to trial.
 
I was mentioning why it was taught, I never said I would partake in such activity. With that being said, under certain situations (depending on the state) it might help your case if it went to trial.
Click to expand...
One advantage might have to do with eyewitness testimony. If you are threatened and have to shoot someone, it is very likely that eyewitnesses will see you with the gun and will see nothing about what the other person had done. Your shouting of a warning could draw the attention of eyewitnesses to the attacker.
 
One advantage might have to do with eyewitness testimony. If you are threatened and have to shoot someone, it is very likely that eyewitnesses will see you with the gun and will see nothing about what the other person had done. Your shouting of a warning could draw the attention of eyewitnesses to the attacker.
Click to expand...

It certainly wouldn't be of any use if no one else was around. Hence the word "liability" in my first post.
 
For me it would entirely depend on the circumstances. If said bad guy has already commenced hostilities, shooting etc. then I can't imagine any warning given. If it appears the bg might back down or is completely out of position to engage me, I will give them the chance, would prefer not to kill them if I have any choice. No set rules that I can see.
 
If somebody who was obviously not invited is inside of my residence, the several important factors which justify lethal force are already in play, according my state statues.

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
Click to expand...

I do acknowledge that people who have a very distorted sense of reality due to mental illness or intoxication can wander into the wrong home. That said, I keep my home secure and the likelihood of that happening is slim to none. Anybody I encounter inside of the privacy of my own walls uninvited is going to be met with either the threat or use of deadly physical force. If the former causes them to comply or to flee, so be it. If it doesn't, it's gonna be a really bad day for both of us.

Everybody has to draw their own lines in the sand. When those lines are crossed, reactions should be instinctual. My lines are drawn based on the knowledge and experience I have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top