The right to fire warning shots

[appraiser]

Every attack is different, but this approach tends to rely on an overly optimistic view of your speed and ability to determine the need to do so without doubt...

Speaking from my personal experience - good luck with all of that...

maybe my answer was too simplified, my point is I am not pulling the trigger unless it is to stop a threat, and I am not taking it out of the holster unless I feel I am going to have to use it.

IMHO and YMMV, brandishing a weapon or firing a warning shot as a deterrent is not a good idea. I would attempt to avoid, retreat, diffuse, or generally get away from a problem before I would go to option 2, which is produce AND FIRE a weapon. Dropping someone with 2 or more rounds center mass is the last thing I want to get involved in, but a close second would be an assault with a deadly weapon charge, illegal discharge of a weapon within X feet of a occupied dwelling or Y feet of a roadway charge, manslaughter or worse( warning shot hits an innocent person) charge, reckless endangerment, etc etc etc.



A dead person can't testify against you.

 

[Kicker96FS]

Right.

The new NH law doesn't "permit it" really. It should be obvious that display of force is justified where its actual use is justified. What the new NH law does is to broadly insulate from prosecution the person who draws in self defense but does not fire, under the general justification for use of force section:

Is blood flowing in the streets yet?

 

[Mr Weebles]

Is blood flowing in the streets yet?

Nope, just syrup.

 

[appraiser]

and molasses

 

[strangenh]

and molasses

Is it mole season already?

 

[Realtor MA]

Way to take one little snippet out of context to make a point.

Sorry you are correct. I just read the posts again. I was at work when I read through the thread quickly.

 

[44marty]

Warning shots are for TV and movies only. As far as laws - absolutely ridiculous to even consider laws on the subject one way or the other. This thread gets my vote to be on the "Dumbest NES Threads List"

The next thing you know there will be a law that says you have to draw an unloaded weapon and warn an attacker that you are loading it to avoid being subject to assault charges.

 

[dcmdon]

We'll just have to disagree. IMHO "brandishing" is one of those BS laws that anti-gun prosecutors use to screw over gun owners. And making additional laws around "warning shots" does nothing except give those prosecutors yet another tool to screw with gun owners. Just because it's dumb doesn't mean it should be illegal.

If its dumb and it only puts you at risk, then I agree with you. There's no reason for it to be illegal.

If its dumb and potentially puts others at risk, then it should be illegal. Something like . . . oh lets say a warning shot in any kind of suburban or urban area.

Jason, thanks for keeping it civil. Sometimes we just agree to disagree.

Cheers,

Don

 

[MassMark]

Puts you one step away from an Iraqi welcome home party...Warning shot = bullet going somewhere that is not an intended target. Frankly, I think passing a "warning shot law" is a bad idea...When a confrontation turns deadly, it will be one more idiotic hobble on the law abiding.... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant had ample time to fire a "warning shot", but instead chose to murder John Q Gangbanger"... No thank you please....

 

[TomH]

I think you should be able to do whatever you need to do. That may or may not include a "warning shot" depending on the situation? I'm not sure how showing a weapon or shooting in the general direction of someone ready to do you harm is wrong. Of course this conference you were at was in CA, so I can see where this is coming from... YMMV.

 

[Jose]

If its dumb and potentially puts others at risk, then it should be illegal.

I think warning shots are stupid.

That said, why should they be illegal per se? What if no one is injured? Where is the harm? Where is the crime?

We already have plenty of laws regarding assault, battery, negligent homicide, ad nauseum to deal with people who negligently hurt or kill others regardless of how they do it. And that doesn't even being to cover liability in tort......

Or you can want anything that might hurt someone to be illegal if you are a statist.

 

[jasons]

Jason, thanks for keeping it civil. Sometimes we just agree to disagree.

 

[dcmdon]

That said, why should they be illegal per se? What if no one is injured? Where is the harm? Where is the crime?

We already have plenty of laws regarding assault, battery, negligent homicide, ad nauseum to deal with people who negligently hurt or kill others regardless of how they do it. And that doesn't even being to cover liability in tort......

Or you can want anything that might hurt someone to be illegal if you are a statist.

If I get all shitfaced and drive, is it illegal even if I make it home ok??
Is it wrong even if I make it home ok?

I thought so.

We have laws against drunk driving because very simply, my rights end where others' begin.
We also have laws, like you said, that cover negligent homicide for if I get all banged up and actually kill someone.

Both are wrong, both are illegal.

I don't know what you mean by being a statist, but this kind of thing is one of the very few legitimate uses for government.

 

[eddbrowne]

Never ?

Scenario 1: It's a dark night, with little light.
For good cause, you reach the point of preparing to fire,
but an approaching goon is not yet "near" a person at risk.
Never fire to ground to show you have a loaded gun ?
Triggerman's rational option.

Scenario 2:
A local cop once caused a fleeing perp to drop their gun, stop,
and raise their hands, merely by firing once to ground.
A fleeing perp can be lawfully shot by anyone in some circumstances.
I can't say never fire a warning first. Triggerman's rational option.

Scenario 3:
You find a goon within your property curtilage, but not trying to enter
your dwelling. If under the relevant law you may shoot them, I can't
say never fire a warning shot. Triggerman's rational option.

Scenario 4 .... ?

 

[DukeNukem]

one and only time I fire a warning shot is when I'm in Alaska fishing and a big beautiful bear ids me as food ....ill give home one warning shot with my Ruger Alaskan....everyone else is
*ucked.

 

[jasons]

If I get all shitfaced and drive, is it illegal even if I make it home ok??
Is it wrong even if I make it home ok?

I see what you're getting at, but consider the definition of "shitfaced." You and I would probably define it as someone who is so impaired on alcohol that he can not properly control his vehicle. A member of the temperance movement might define it as someone who has a six pack in the trunk.

 

[dcmdon]

Scenario 1: It's a dark night, with little light.
For good cause, you reach the point of preparing to fire,
but an approaching goon is not yet "near" a person at risk.
Never fire to ground to show you have a loaded gun ?
Triggerman's rational option.

Scenario 2:
A local cop once caused a fleeing perp to drop their gun, stop,
and raise their hands, merely by firing once to ground.
A fleeing perp can be lawfully shot by anyone in some circumstances.
I can't say never fire a warning first. Triggerman's rational option.

Scenario 3:
You find a goon within your property curtilage, but not trying to enter
your dwelling. If under the relevant law you may shoot them, I can't
say never fire a warning shot. Triggerman's rational option.

Scenario 4 .... ?

1) your description is kindof vague. Is he saying something. are you sure he is a bad guy. does he have a weapon? What do you mean "for good cause". Way too vague.
but I'll bite. You retreat. if he continues follow, and assuming he has stated his intentions. you draw with the intention of firing. if he turns and runs, then you stop. But you do not pause to wait. his reaction must be immediate.

2) what is the perp fleeing from? Did he rob a liquor store or had he just raped a child? Liquor store - let him run. raped a kid - light him up.
Again too vague to really know what you mean.

3) whats with this term "goon". Whats that supposed to convey? to me its big and dumb and slow. Trying to bang his way into your house. Here you have the luxury of time and distance. Put the front sight on the door or window and give a verbal warning. If he doesn't turn and run, fire when ready. I'm not taking any chances as far as hitting an innocent. I live in an old neighborhood with houses close to the street. If I lived in the woods, maybe a warning shot, but probably not simply because its bad practice.

Don

 

[dcmdon]

I see what you're getting at, but consider the definition of "shitfaced." You and I would probably define it as someone who is so impaired on alcohol that he can not properly control his vehicle. A member of the temperance movement might define it as someone who has a six pack in the trunk.

We're not talking about a bunch of quaker's definition.

We're talking ethics and legality.
Ethically, its a moving target, but lets assume I am impaired.
Legally, I'm above .08, or whatever it is in your state.

Thats a red herring and you know it.

 

[eddbrowne]

Lasers as warning.

I use gun lasers partly as a warning that
a bullet might arrive soon; and on target.

And a dazzle-beam can provide an extra second to
decide on that Triggerman's rational option.

(a warning shot also can notify all concerned that the system is go)

 

[jasons]

Thats a red herring and you know it.

Well you brought it up, so.....

To be clear: My position is that there's no way that I could possibly foresee every potential circumstance in which someone may feel the need to fire a "warning shot." Are there possibilities where firing a "warning shot" is reckless? Yes. Are there possibilities where firing a "warning shot" could be justified? Yes again. A blanket ban without even properly defining the "crime" seems a bit silly to me. Kinda like banning all black rifles with threaded muzzles and pistol grips regardless of the way that they are used. Makes no logical sense.


EDIT: On a side note, I would argue that there is a major parallel between the temperance movement and the anti-gun movement. Both have passed laws that have no basis in logic and have had a clearly negative impact on society.

 

[cekim]

Well you brought it up, so.....

To be clear: My position is that there's no way that I could possibly foresee every potential circumstance in which someone may feel the need to fire a "warning shot." Are there possibilities where firing a "warning shot" is reckless? Yes. Are there possibilities where firing a "warning shot" could be justified? Yes again. A blanket ban without even properly defining the "crime" seems a bit silly to me. Kinda like banning all black rifles with threaded muzzles and pistol grips regardless of the way that they are used. Makes no logical sense.


EDIT: On a side note, I would argue that there is a major parallel between the temperance movement and the anti-gun movement. Both have passed laws that have no basis in logic and have had a clearly negative impact on society.

...and the drug war and pretty much any of the 'big government' programs that now both parties have embraced in varying ways...

 

[dcmdon]

I agree with what you said above.

I just can not for the life of me think of a situation where a warning shot would do more good than harm, either by decreasing the amount of time I have to deliver real shots or by putting innocents at risk.

let me restate that, I can't think of any REASONABLE scenario.

Maybe if I lived out on a ranch with nobody around. And the bad guys made their intentions known at 200 yards, somehow. Then a warning shot might be reasonable.
Regardless, I do agree that you need to keep your options open.

Re your comment about the temperance movement, I REALLY agree with you there.

In CT, it is not illegal for passengers to drink. Nobody, even in CT seems to know that. Its a right I enjoy exercising probably twice a month. I'm by no means a lush, but sometimes a beer is just what you want.

I was once at a sobriety check point with my wife and cooperating only as much as required by law. (provide drivers license, thats it. No conversation, no questions, no field sobriety test)
I had not had a single drink that night. The officer pointed to a beer bottle in the center console and asked what that was. I replied with a question, "don't you know that passengers can drink in a vehicle".
he didn't like that.

Its funny. I'm a private pilot and nobody bats an eyelash when passengers drink in airplanes. As long as the pilot is 100% sober. Thats whe way it should be. Thats the ADULT way of looking at things.

But you already know that.

 

[dcmdon]

...and the drug war and pretty much any of the 'big government' programs that now both parties have embraced in varying ways...

Absolutely. The gun issue is about the only thing the Republicans are any good for these days.

 

[jasons]

...and the drug war and pretty much any of the 'big government' programs that now both parties have embraced in varying ways...

Yep. Every single time humans have "banned" something that other humans want we've created a black market that has no problem killing people, buying judges, etc., etc., in order to get their product to the market. Supply and demand is a pretty amazing thing.

Absolutely. The gun issue is about the only thing the Republicans are any good for these days.

Don't even get me started on the whole "Reagan and the machine gun ban" thing.

 

[44marty]

Please - CLOSE this thread - Absolutely no good can come of it.

If we leave it up to lawmakers, a warning shot will be illegal, and a warning shout will become mandatory before firing. The only good that can possibly come of this is that responsible gun owners will have to practice to the point that they never miss (right) because misses will be illegal.

 

[cekim]

Absolutely. The gun issue is about the only thing the Republicans are any good for these days.

They aren't even much good for that lately...

Back to the original question - this idea of "a right to" crap is something the left is using to cloud the debate of entitlements generally. A "right to housing," "right to healthcare," "right to your neighbors paycheck," etc...

We shouldn't get into that BS game. You have a "right" to self defense and we should punish "zero tolerance" policy makers with our own "zero tolerance," but that does not mean that the concepts of liability and negligence go out the window. As they say - you are ethically and morally responsible for every round that you fire...

If you fire and your round lodges in the dirt - no harm no foul. If you fire and the round comes down or skips into something bad - no "right" is going to protect you. We should generally stop using the idea of "reckless endangerment" to enforce a "pre-crime" agenda and look at the intent and the action rather than the endless possibilities.

 

[GSG]

Anyone wondering where to 'point' when preparing to fire a warning shot in a Wal-Mart parking lot should be sure to carefully aim that warning shot such that it will pass through both of their testicles, thus avoiding any potential harm to innocent future generations.

Oh, you read that thread too?

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/58218-Shooting-at-Walmart-in-Rochester-NH

Please - CLOSE this thread - Absolutely no good can come of it.

Other than the wealth of incorrect info on when you're justified to shoot (it's different in every single state folks), I disagree with you.

My thoughts on warning shots/brandishing is that they're stupid in the context that most people here are referring to them. Reminds me of the line from a movie:

Let's say somebody's lying, right? And, you know they lying. Can you shoot 'em?

Well, it depends. Use your own judgment.

I think the issue presented here is not whether warning shots or "brandishing" are a good idea, but whether or not they need to be specifically outlawed, protected or ignored legally. IMO, there needs to be strict protections built into the law for people lawfully defending themselves so that you don't go to jail because of some stupid technicality that a cop thinks needs to be sorted out in court.

While I can't see a reason to ever fire a warning shot, I'm willing to leave room in my logic for a situation that may require it. Just because it's outside of my realm of understanding doesn't mean it won't be a viable option someday. Also, similar to people applying for an LTC-A in Mass., even if you can't see a reason to carry/hunt/own a handgun right now, who's to say that circumstances won't change your mind on it someday? Why take that legal option away?

Here's links to a few threads that Kevlar's posted involving lawful self defense involving warning shots:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/93639-MO-Homeowner-Fires-Shots-At-Intruder

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...omeowner-Shoots-Pipe-Wielding-Prowler-4-Times

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/96000-CA-Elderly-Homeowner-Fires-Shot-At-Intruder

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...A-Attempted-Home-Invasion-Woman-Intruder-Shot

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...Neighbor-Shoots-Intruder-During-Home-Invasion

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...OR-Man-Scares-Off-Attackers-With-Warning-Shot

Two incidents also come to mind where warning shots were used in a disaster type situation.

One was after hurricane Katrina in Texas, where a lonely small town gas station was the nearest location for many people to get food, fuel and water. There was a huge line of cars waiting to get in, and a group of men blocked off the pumps with their cars and started pumping all the fuel into their own containers, and offering to sell it at a 400% markup or so. It nearly started a riot, with all those people angry & hungry and the police busy dealing with the disaster, but the gas station owner came out and fired warning shots to get the scumbags off his property and to calm the situation before a lot of people got hurt and killed.

The other was in New England during the recent ice storm, where a homeowner fired a warning shot over the head of a group of thieves attempting to forcibly enter his neighbors house. Similar to the above situation, help was a long way off at the time, and the circumstances were anything but ordinary with the power out and many roads blocked off.

I'm saying that in general I think it's a bad idea, but that there are certainly some circumstances where it might come up, and because of that, it should be a legally protected manner of self defense. The same rules as other lawful self defense should apply, so that if property is damaged or someone is injured or killed by someone doing something stupid in the process of defending themselves then civil liability or criminal charges may result.

 

[Jose]

If I get all shitfaced and drive, is it illegal even if I make it home ok??

It shouldn't be

Is it wrong even if I make it home ok?

No

 

[MaverickNH]

Puts you one step away from an Iraqi welcome home party...Warning shot = bullet going somewhere that is not an intended target. Frankly, I think passing a "warning shot law" is a bad idea...When a confrontation turns deadly, it will be one more idiotic hobble on the law abiding.... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant had ample time to fire a "warning shot", but instead chose to murder John Q Gangbanger"... No thank you please....

Good point there...it all falls under what a reasonable man would do at a trial, in many states. But the goal appears to be to diminish the odds that one will be prosecuted to begin with for firing a warning shot, just as was NH's new brandishing law. Creating a strong affirmative defense option can deter prosecution.

Whatever motivated the effort to pass such a law, it seems that it should be a fair bit lower on the priority list than many other initiatives.

 

[calsdad]

If I get all shitfaced and drive, is it illegal even if I make it home ok??
Is it wrong even if I make it home ok?

It didn't used to be a problem. When I was a kid - people drove drunk ALL THE TIME.

I have friends who crashed their cars while drunk - and were driven home by the cops.

It wasn't a great thing. And you could get arrested for it - if the cops felt like it. But the general attitude in most parts of society at the time was: " no harm - no foul".


This is actually a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post: - the law has changed in this country to basically forbid things just because they "might" cause a problem. The law used to be understood to be used in cases where one person actually harmed another. Now it is used to enforce behavioral norms.

This IS the road to tyranny.

I thought so.

We have laws against drunk driving because very simply, my rights end where others' begin.
We also have laws, like you said, that cover negligent homicide for if I get all banged up and actually kill someone.

Both are wrong, both are illegal.

I don't know what you mean by being a statist, but this kind of thing is one of the very few legitimate uses for government.

If we already have laws for negligent homicide - why do we need laws against drunk driving? If a person is drunk - crashes into your car and kills you, guess what - it's negligent homicide. If the other person is drunk - decides to wait until 4:00AM and then drive home slowly on the deserted streets - then isn't he at least "competent" to drive because he has made a decision that avoids as best as possible the likelihood of an accident?

Problem is - as we all figured out when we were kids driving drunk - trying to drive drunk in the middle of the night is the BEST way to get picked up. You are actually much better off driving drunk when there is a lot of traffic - just the same way you are better off speeding when there is a bunch of traffic - because you have LESS of a chance of being picked up.

The "law" actually works against itself - because it takes on something that it is not supposed to be for in a free republic: enforcing behavior instead of punishing harm against others.