Warning Shots??? Shooting to Wound???
- Thread starter Loosedhorse
- Start date
Someone has put me in fear of my life in accordance with state law. I draw and issue a command...they do not comply...I fire! If they are still alive I issue another command.... that is my warning shot. I will utilize deadly force until it is no longer needed. There is no such thing as a fair fight unless you are in a ring with a referee. All other times.. all bets are off.
Violate the confines of my home and I will take extreme umbrage at the violators and the law is on my side unless I violate my right to remain silent.
Violate the confines of my home and I will take extreme umbrage at the violators and the law is on my side unless I violate my right to remain silent.
Loosedhorse
Moderator
Harold Fish...
Perhaps gives us an object lesson on "warning shots". His case has recently come up in another thread: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=585530&page=5
Apparently, Fish was set upon by Kuenzli's dogs, and perceived a threat. He fired a warning shot.
Sounds reasonable: he was in the woods. There is no evidence that anyone was hurt by the shot. And it worked! The dogs, likely with their ears ringing, ran away.
But...
Kuenzli apparently thought Fish was shooting at his dogs, and advanced to (it was perceived) attack Fish. Fish shot him, claimed self-defense, and was convicted (initially; it took a lot of effort and time to get that changed).
A lot of ink has been spilled on speculations about why the jury convicted Fish. I think it is possible that one factor was that the jury felt the "warning shot", whether or not it was an "aggressive act", instigated Kuenzli's attack; there would have been no approach by Kuenzli without that shot.
We can all remark on the "wisdom" of rushing an obviously armed man with only a screwdriver (now that his dogs had retreated) as a weapon. However, it is likely true that many of us would, in circumstances where we'd think twice about getting violent for self-defense, shed all hesitation if it was our kids being threatened. And some people love their dogs very much.
Anyway, it would be nice to know if Fish regretted that warning shot. Even though it "worked".
Perhaps gives us an object lesson on "warning shots". His case has recently come up in another thread: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=585530&page=5
Apparently, Fish was set upon by Kuenzli's dogs, and perceived a threat. He fired a warning shot.
Sounds reasonable: he was in the woods. There is no evidence that anyone was hurt by the shot. And it worked! The dogs, likely with their ears ringing, ran away.
But...
Kuenzli apparently thought Fish was shooting at his dogs, and advanced to (it was perceived) attack Fish. Fish shot him, claimed self-defense, and was convicted (initially; it took a lot of effort and time to get that changed).
A lot of ink has been spilled on speculations about why the jury convicted Fish. I think it is possible that one factor was that the jury felt the "warning shot", whether or not it was an "aggressive act", instigated Kuenzli's attack; there would have been no approach by Kuenzli without that shot.
We can all remark on the "wisdom" of rushing an obviously armed man with only a screwdriver (now that his dogs had retreated) as a weapon. However, it is likely true that many of us would, in circumstances where we'd think twice about getting violent for self-defense, shed all hesitation if it was our kids being threatened. And some people love their dogs very much.
Anyway, it would be nice to know if Fish regretted that warning shot. Even though it "worked".
Everything about these situations is subject to terrible amounts of ambiguity. You have deficient thinking. After its over liars and biased authorities and dozens of people who have varying agendas pick apart the events in hindsight and decide, not always objectively, what the laws mean and how they must be applied.eventually, this entire process is winnowed down to a jury of inexperienced, not particularly knowledgeable, and maybe even stupid decision makers, who may be either gullible or even predisposed to unfair leanings.
This crew of people are going to be subjected to the manipulation of the smartest, well educated, and cunning people involved in the process, the teams of defense and prosecution. A lot of cases are resolved on nothing but the skills of manipulation that these teams have, how well they lead the decision makers to the desired goal.
Either way, it's okay, because a defense team has rights to maximize their chances of success, and numerous rights of appeals.
Our court system is really ineffective, but the principle is very, very sound. The best way of winning in a system like this is to understand every possible aspect of the law, to use the best possible judgment, to follow those laws carefully, and to avoid complicated situations.
People wind up losing unfairly in every possible aspect of life and lots of them are completely beyond their control. The thing that minimizes unfortunate events like imprisonment on ambiguous convictions is being smart and careful.
This crew of people are going to be subjected to the manipulation of the smartest, well educated, and cunning people involved in the process, the teams of defense and prosecution. A lot of cases are resolved on nothing but the skills of manipulation that these teams have, how well they lead the decision makers to the desired goal.
Either way, it's okay, because a defense team has rights to maximize their chances of success, and numerous rights of appeals.
Our court system is really ineffective, but the principle is very, very sound. The best way of winning in a system like this is to understand every possible aspect of the law, to use the best possible judgment, to follow those laws carefully, and to avoid complicated situations.
People wind up losing unfairly in every possible aspect of life and lots of them are completely beyond their control. The thing that minimizes unfortunate events like imprisonment on ambiguous convictions is being smart and careful.
Horse, there are a number of people who have even dived into boiling hot springs to save their dogs. There are numerous occasions when people have died or risked dying to save their animals. Charging an armed man without a serious weapon to rescue a dog isn't an outlandish event, people die trying to save animals. A few years ago a guy in a car accelerated to hit a cat, and I blocked him. He slowed and went around.
It wasn't smart, I'll do it again if the same thing happens. It wasn't jumping onto a highway, it was standing between a person who could have stopped. He had a choice. Kill a man on purpose or not. I couldn't let the man get away with "murder", killing a neighbor's cat.
It wasn't smart, I'll do it again if the same thing happens. It wasn't jumping onto a highway, it was standing between a person who could have stopped. He had a choice. Kill a man on purpose or not. I couldn't let the man get away with "murder", killing a neighbor's cat.
Last edited:
Loosedhorse
Moderator
Fair points, Brian.
You have to have a firm grasp of the concept of crazy before you can have a firm grasp on human thought and behavior.everyone has a number of levels of defective thinking. I know a lot of my own weaknesses and have others that I don't know. Everyone has what is called "the spinach in the teeth"; problems that everyone sees that we aren't aware of.
You really have to expect people to act stupidly, or at least irrationally, right? Poking the bear may result in injury, yet we still poke that 400 pound carnivore.
A few of my problems are pessimism, antisocial thinking, and serious lack of faith in humanity, as well as a lack of sympathy or patience with dumb people. I read about stupid accidents, and I tend to scream out loud.
Yep, I'm defective that way.
You really have to expect people to act stupidly, or at least irrationally, right? Poking the bear may result in injury, yet we still poke that 400 pound carnivore.
A few of my problems are pessimism, antisocial thinking, and serious lack of faith in humanity, as well as a lack of sympathy or patience with dumb people. I read about stupid accidents, and I tend to scream out loud.
Yep, I'm defective that way.
I think that if a police officer (or citizen) pulls a life or death defense tool, the situation has moved beyond the realm of "controllable."
Firing a warning shot is not going to have predictable results, so the officer/citizen would be injecting more Xfactor into an environment that already is in flux. I'm not a fan of the free and easy use of deadly force by the police, but I think that creating chaos is the opposite of the police officer's job description. For a civilian, there would be a legal accounting of for that warning shot, so that seems like a losing proposition.
my 2c.
Firing a warning shot is not going to have predictable results, so the officer/citizen would be injecting more Xfactor into an environment that already is in flux. I'm not a fan of the free and easy use of deadly force by the police, but I think that creating chaos is the opposite of the police officer's job description. For a civilian, there would be a legal accounting of for that warning shot, so that seems like a losing proposition.
my 2c.
And there you have it. This man is a highly intelligent and educated expert with a strong history in this area. He's going to vote his conscience, I know that. It's likely that if he sits on a jury and sees something stupid that clearly violates the involved statutes he's not going to vote to acquit. Probably, I guess.
Lots of other people here will think more charitably and lean towards acquittal because of a certain amount of sympathy towards a peer.
Just for the record, I'd be disinclined to acquit if the situation showed that the person violated the laws clearly, even if it seemed like an "innocent lapse in judgment".
Lots of other people here will think more charitably and lean towards acquittal because of a certain amount of sympathy towards a peer.
Just for the record, I'd be disinclined to acquit if the situation showed that the person violated the laws clearly, even if it seemed like an "innocent lapse in judgment".
It is possible that "warning shots" are legal in many states, but still not a good idea, imo.
In my state, at least, this could be charged under several laws, regardless of any other statutes, depending upon your own legal jurisdiction and local laws.
Charges that could be filed are assault with a deadly weapon; unless there is a solid case of self defense, assault is partly defined as threatening a person with injury. You could also be charged with brandishing. Without clear justification, drawing a weapon and firing a round to threaten the other person certainly qualifies. At the very lowest level of consequences would be the simple city ordinance that most places have that forbids discharging a gun in any unregulated place.
Having a legal right to fire a warning shot is probably covered in many stand your ground and castle laws, situations n which lethal force is authorized. Without the protection of such laws or any other laws, local or state laws can result in their charges, possibly even reckless endangerment.
In my state, at least, this could be charged under several laws, regardless of any other statutes, depending upon your own legal jurisdiction and local laws.
Charges that could be filed are assault with a deadly weapon; unless there is a solid case of self defense, assault is partly defined as threatening a person with injury. You could also be charged with brandishing. Without clear justification, drawing a weapon and firing a round to threaten the other person certainly qualifies. At the very lowest level of consequences would be the simple city ordinance that most places have that forbids discharging a gun in any unregulated place.
Having a legal right to fire a warning shot is probably covered in many stand your ground and castle laws, situations n which lethal force is authorized. Without the protection of such laws or any other laws, local or state laws can result in their charges, possibly even reckless endangerment.
ShootistPRS
New member
Police can shoot to stop a violent felon who is running away because they protect society as a whole. A citizen must disengage as soon as the immediate threat is over.
Where would you recommend this warning shot be placed, so as not to endanger the general public?
My warning shot would likely be mid chest.
Where would you recommend this warning shot be placed, so as not to endanger the general public?
My warning shot would likely be mid chest.
On a side note, you've all seen the crazies in the middle east pouring rounds into the air? A video, pretty well confirmed, showed some pinhead shooting at a wedding, then he put the gun down on a table, still loaded and ready to fire. A kid picked it up, and fired a round into his abdomen at near contact range.
It struck me at the time that if he was a clod who would fire into the air, he'd engage in other recklessness.
It continually surprises me as to how few people are struck by errant bullets; populations are dense in places. I can only assume that a lot of those air rounds wind up on rooftops, maybe on average almost a quarter of occupied land has a barrier of some sort, and most normal situations have some space between people.
A number of years ago, there was a running gunfight here in town that resulted in maybe a few dozen pistol rounds fired, all but two missed the peep.
Nobody injured, even though it was downtown. Low population density, lots of brick buildings and cars.
It struck me at the time that if he was a clod who would fire into the air, he'd engage in other recklessness.
It continually surprises me as to how few people are struck by errant bullets; populations are dense in places. I can only assume that a lot of those air rounds wind up on rooftops, maybe on average almost a quarter of occupied land has a barrier of some sort, and most normal situations have some space between people.
A number of years ago, there was a running gunfight here in town that resulted in maybe a few dozen pistol rounds fired, all but two missed the peep.
Nobody injured, even though it was downtown. Low population density, lots of brick buildings and cars.
MosinNOUGAT
New member
This is kind of off topic, but this is why the 5.56x45 round was developed. It does easily kill, but was more to wound the enemy so instead of taking one guy out of the fight, it takes down that one guy +1-3 others who have to take care of him so there are less enemies to fight against in battle. At least, this is what I've heard.
Last edited:
PlatinumCore16
New member
Someone on the first page mentioned a police officer NOT shooting a suspect because they were worried about backlash. Had to go look it up and it just grinds my gears something fierce: http://www.dailywire.com/news/9780/cop-beaten-brutally-doesnt-draw-gun-fear-media-aaron-bandler
I agree that police officers should be held accountable, but attempting to hamstring them with unnecessary and potentially dangerous policies will not help anything. Especially the public at large that police officers are sworn to defend and protect.
I agree that police officers should be held accountable, but attempting to hamstring them with unnecessary and potentially dangerous policies will not help anything. Especially the public at large that police officers are sworn to defend and protect.