• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Warning Shot?

If its out of the holster, I mean to do harm until such time as I reholster, which means harm to me and mine had damn well better be imminent and clearly present. Even then, I'm not immune to prosecution. Thats just how it goes. Civil suits can be a bitch, even if I win, it will still cost me.
 
But Joe Biden said I could....
Joe Biden may have a law degree, but you would be a fool to take his advice.

Joe Biden talks about loosing his wife to a drunk driver. The fact is, it was his wife who had been drinking.

Joe likes to tell the story about being in a helicopter in Afghanistan and his helicopter was forced down. How was his helicopter forced down? By snow.

Joe Biden and the truth, ain't really close friends. But I guess you gotta have an altered state of thinking to be a liberal.
 
More likely than not a warning shot is an unlawful discharge. You are legally and financially liable for every bullet that leaves your barrel. If you don't have the justification under the law to take a life, better leave your finger off the trigger. If it's out of your holster you can probably be charged with brandishing.

you definitely can. the boss's son is being hit with a brandishing charge.
 
When going through a state-certified school to become a private investigator in Ga. in 1993,we were taught that it is illegal to fire a warning shot in Ga. While attending firearms training on Dobbins Air Force we were told that it was illegal to fire a warning shot on Dobbins. Probably ,most locations have the same laws.
They need to teach PIs to stay off private property,good way to get a killin.
 
I have heard many times that in the case of a home invasion, in which an automobile was at the residence, it coild be argued that the invaders would be aware the home is occupied and thus posess violent/lethal intent ----warranting use of self defense by the homeowner. Anyone got .02 on this?
 
I have heard many times that in the case of a home invasion, in which an automobile was at the residence, it coild be argued that the invaders would be aware the home is occupied and thus posess violent/lethal intent ----warranting use of self defense by the homeowner. Anyone got .02 on this?

My understanding is that even without that intent, you are justified in using lethal force on a home invader. Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll delete my comment.
 
Back
Top Bottom