drew my sidearm, lesson learned

[tfergusonracing]

Too many posts to read all of them, so my apologies if I'm repetitive. First, to the OP, sleep well tonight. All in all, you did the right thing. Had you not stepped in, there's no telling where it could have gone. You definitely don't want a dispute to turn into the lead story on the noon news.

Second, I can't believe how many people would just close the blinds and go on watching Wheel of Fortune. What if it was an abduction, rape, etc. in progress. I agree that the first thing to do is to get 911 on the horn, but there's no reason that you can't do more than that. Actually, if it were me (and it was, in one situation), I would call 911 and keep them on the phone the WHOLE time until police arrived. There may not be video, but at least there would be an audio recording of what happened. (And if this were the situation and you had a gun, let the dispatcher know who you are and exactly what you're wearing and MAKE SURE they relay that to the responding officers.)

Third, as already stated, a warning shot is a no no. I'm sorry you have to deal with the legalities of firing a shot since you were in the right, but hopefully it's minor and settles quickly in your favor.

Again, you did the right thing and don't second guess it now. (Just remember no warning shots in the future!)

 

[Bear44]

Too many posts to read all of them, so my apologies if I'm repetitive. First, to the OP, sleep well tonight. All in all, you did the right thing. Had you not stepped in, there's no telling where it could have gone. You definitely don't want a dispute to turn into the lead story on the noon news.

Second, I can't believe how many people would just close the blinds and go on watching Wheel of Fortune. What if it was an abduction, rape, etc. in progress. I agree that the first thing to do is to get 911 on the horn, but there's no reason that you can't do more than that. Actually, if it were me (and it was, in one situation), I would call 911 and keep them on the phone the WHOLE time until police arrived. There may not be video, but at least there would be an audio recording of what happened. (And if this were the situation and you had a gun, let the dispatcher know who you are and exactly what you're wearing and MAKE SURE they relay that to the responding officers.)

Third, as already stated, a warning shot is a no no. I'm sorry you have to deal with the legalities of firing a shot since you were in the right, but hopefully it's minor and settles quickly in your favor.

Again, you did the right thing and don't second guess it now. (Just remember no warning shots in the future!)

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others. WHY is a warning shot a no-no? Tell me why you believe that there is no circumstance that it would be the right response.

 

[protective measures]

Good to see you found this thread. You and I have gone round and round about this before, but we can do it again so those in the bleachers get both sides of this argument.

Unless you could show that there was a distinct disparity of force or that he was armed, you would be tried by 12....and convicted. Why would you be willing to take that risk, but not fire a round into the ground to try and convince the guy he was about to die if he kept coming? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Following doctrine to the point of self destruction is never a good idea. Knowing when to make an exception to the rule can be the difference between life, death or life behind bars.

Respectfully disagree.

No one in either the training community or in all of the L.E. circles (Fed., State, or local) that I've ever discussed this topic with share your opinion.


Reasons against warning shots:
1. It's illegal in most cities & can cost you a significant amount of money to defend as well as possibly your carry permit. You will be very susceptible to at least a charge of reckless endangerment in the county or city as well as unlawful discharge within city limits.

2. Guns are not designed to be used as "less-lethal" tools.
Use of Deadly Force is an all or nothing thing.... you're either justified or you're not.

3. The gun-owner is responsible for EVERY bullet that comes out of their gun.
As Ayoob & many others have said, "There's (potentially) an attorney attached to every bullet you fire".

4. In urban environments there are too many opportunities for a hastily fired warning shot to ricochet off a hard surface & kill or injure an innocent person.

5. If it is truly a life or death situation you may only have time for one or two weak pistol shots that might not work even if you do hit C.O.M. so why waste those shots on intentionally missing when most people including L.E. can't (under stress) hit a live moving animated target when they're trying to shoot them?

6. Once you fire now your "opponent" can possibly make a reasonable argument that YOU knew you weren't justified in using lethal force but now you've given them justification to use lethal force against YOU.

 

[protective measures]

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others. WHY is a warning shot a no-no? Tell me why you believe that there is no circumstance that it would be the right response.

Let's start w/ IT'S AGAINST THE LAW....

 

[captdave77]

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others. WHY is a warning shot a no-no? Tell me why you believe that there is no circumstance that it would be the right response.

Because bullets are ****ing deadly. That's why.

You fired warning shots without a problem? Good for you, but that does not make it right. I used to drive with a beer in my lap and a joint in my mouth, but that does not make it right.

 

[tfergusonracing]

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others. WHY is a warning shot a no-no? Tell me why you believe that there is no circumstance that it would be the right response.

The post right after yours answers that pretty well. It's almost guaranteed that doing so is illegal (refer back to who in the original situation got ticketed) and as several mentioned, there is a risk that a warning shot can hit someone else. In a defensive situation, you shoot only to kill, or you don't shoot at all. No warning shots and no shooting them in the leg because "dey wuz a good boy and dey din' hurts nobody."

 

[protective measures]

Here's the question. If he had not taken off, but continued to advance and you would not have fired a warning shot, would you have killed him and possible faced manslaughter charges, allowed him to close and possible kill you with your own weapon, or run away?

Not saying it would or would not be the right thing to do as there are millions of variables affecting that decision but if a person were use the threat of deadly force in the act of preventing a forcible felony & the aggressor began approaching in an aggressive manner even after being given one or more loud verbal warnings to STOP! then in most cases I would feel justified using lethal force to stop the threat.
In addition to using the threat of lethal force to prevent or stop the forcible felony the "shooter" used the least amount of force possible to stop the threat & the aggressor acted "unreasonably" by continuing to advance on an armed person telling them to STOP.

 

[protective measures]

The post right after yours answers that pretty well. It's almost guaranteed that doing so is illegal (refer back to who in the original situation got ticketed) and as several mentioned, there is a risk that a warning shot can hit someone else. In a defensive situation, you shoot only to kill, or you don't shoot at all. No warning shots and no shooting them in the leg because "dey wuz a good boy and dey din' hurts nobody."

You do not "shoot to kill"... you shoot to stop the threat.
Saying you are shooting to kill suggests criminal intent.

 

[captdave77]

I love the new results based legal system.

I guess if I get pulled over for speeding, I can say "Yeah I was doing 90, but did anyone die?"

 

[Bear44]

Respectfully disagree.

No one in either the training community or in all of the L.E. circles (Fed., State, or local) that I've ever discussed this topic with share your opinion.


Reasons against warning shots:
1. It's illegal in most cities & can cost you a significant amount of money to defend as well as possibly your carry permit. You will be very susceptible to at least a charge of reckless endangerment in the county or city as well as unlawful discharge within city limits.

2. Guns are not designed to be used as "less-lethal" tools.
Use of Deadly Force is an all or nothing thing.... you're either justified or you're not.

3. The gun-owner is responsible for EVERY bullet that comes out of their gun.
As Ayoob & many others have said, "There's (potentially) an attorney attached to every bullet you fire".

4. In urban environments there are too many opportunities for a hastily fired warning shot to ricochet off a hard surface & kill or injure an innocent person.

5. If it is truly a life or death situation you may only have time for one or two weak pistol shots that might not work even if you do hit C.O.M. so why waste those shots on intentionally missing when most people including L.E. can't (under stress) hit a live moving animated target when they're trying to shoot them?

6. Once you fire now your "opponent" can possibly make a reasonable argument that YOU knew you weren't justified in using lethal force but now you've given them justification to use lethal force against YOU.

You have already posted this in this thread and I have responded to every one of them.