Warning shots are not helping anyone

[FreeWillie]

I'm just a keyboard commando. My hat's off to you, sir.

I appreciate your kindness. It's what I choose to do. I always wanted to fly. The military was the only way I would get to do that. It carried a few risks that I was prepared to accept.

 

[M1911]

I appreciate your kindness. It's what I choose to do. I always wanted to fly. The military was the only way I would get to do that. It carried a few risks that I was prepared to accept.

I always wanted to fly as well. When the Navy Corpsmen running the eye test at the physical set the machine at 20-20 and asked me to read the line, I said "what line?" He set it to 20-30 and asked me to read the line. I said "what line?" He got to the machine's limit, 20-400, and I still couldn't see the line.

I did great on the spatial orientation test (100%) and the recruiter tried to convince me to be a backseater. No thanks. I ended up not enlisting.

 

[FreeWillie]

I always wanted to fly as well. When the Navy Corpsmen running the eye test at the physical set the machine at 20-20 and asked me to read the line, I said "what line?" He set it to 20-30 and asked me to read the line. I said "what line?" He got to the machine's limit, 20-400, and I still couldn't see the line.

I did great on the spatial orientation test (100%) and the recruiter tried to convince me to be a backseater. No thanks. I ended up not enlisting.

I really wish you would have been a GIB (Guy In Back) I don't think you would have regretted it. I never flew with a GIB in a fighter. I did have a crew in B-52's. What a great bunch of guys. We still keep in touch. The Gunner (SSgt Richard Swain) passed a few years ago and we all went to the funeral. Then we all went and got drunk, Rick would have approved! He was an awesome guy. I also got my butt in a crack when we had to divert to San Antonio and they didn't (wouldn't) provide a room in the enlisted billet. I got really mad that a combat crew member was denied billet. He ended up in a real nice room when I got through raising hell. The next day as the crew crawled up the ladder into the belly of the "beast", Rick and I were left standing on the ramp. He said "Thanks". My Crew, My Blood.

BTW We were named a Blue Ribbon Crew (only 4 before us in SAC) And a Master Crew. We could shove a nuke down your throat +- 10 feet.

Bunch of black sheep, trouble makers, malcontents and general AHOLES. But when the belly door closed they were all business

 

[M1911]

I really wish you would have been a GIB (Guy In Back) I don't think you would have regretted it.

I wanted to be the guy moving the stick. The idea of sitting in back, knowing just how hung over your buddy up front was as he was trying to land on the carrier at night, and not being able to do anything but pray required more courage than I possess...

I'd just graduated with a Civil Engineering degree, so the recruiter was after me to join the Seabees. I ended up going to grad school instead. I gained some things by taking the path that I took, but I'm also sure that I missed some things by not going into the service.

 

[xring]

Pussies shot to stop. I shot to kill. And nobody will change that attitude. 3 .45 center mass if that doesn't do it then 3 more. And I have 3 more after that. Don't want to be a keyboard commando but.

Make that same statement at your department disciplinary hearing or your wrongfull death trial and you'll be doing a life bid. Your goal is to stop the perp's ability to cause you or someone else further harm. Anything more than that is excessive force and you will go down for it. Ask someone who knows.

 

[FreeWillie]

I wanted to be the guy moving the stick. The idea of sitting in back, knowing just how hung over your buddy up front was as he was trying to land on the carrier at night, and not being able to do anything but pray required more courage than I possess...

I'd just graduated with a Civil Engineering degree, so the recruiter was after me to join the Seabees. I ended up going to grad school instead. I gained some things by taking the path that I took, but I'm also sure that I missed some things by not going into the service.

The first thing you do is teach the GIB to land the airchene. You never know when you're gonna be hung over and need the GIB "I'm f86754 you got it. Get us on the ground"

 

[FreeWillie]

Make that same statement at your department disciplinary hearing or your wrongfull death trial and you'll be doing a life bid. Your goal is to stop the perp's ability to cause you or someone else further harm. Anything more than that is excessive force and you will go down for it. Ask someone who knows.

All of you assume that these are statements I'm going to make,. NO

"I want to go to the ER I think I am hurt. Please take me to the Hospital"

" I was attacked and he hurt me. I need medical attention"

"Hey Keith, I need to retain your services"

"He hurt me I need medical care"

"Keith I shot him, he attacked me"

"Please get me a Doctor, I'm hurt"'

"I'M HURT AND I NEED A DOCTOR! SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME"

I'm 63 years old. I can get away with it.

 

[FreeWillie]

I wanted to be the guy moving the stick. The idea of sitting in back, knowing just how hung over your buddy up front was as he was trying to land on the carrier at night, and not being able to do anything but pray required more courage than I possess...

I'd just graduated with a Civil Engineering degree, so the recruiter was after me to join the Seabees. I ended up going to grad school instead. I gained some things by taking the path that I took, but I'm also sure that I missed some things by not going into the service.

I really can understand about "being the guy moving the stick". I think you would have made a hell of a Crew Mate. The attitude is there. That's good.

 

[ericcif]

Arm chair commando's fallout

 

[FreeWillie]

. Need to leave it alone

 

[depicts]

Free Willie, thank you so very much for your service. I was on the ground up around Dak To when guys like you pounded the surrounding rubber plantation getting me and a lot of my friends out of a deep pickle. Thanks to every one of you pilots for "Dropping in" on us!!!!!

 

[TomH]

Warning shot or not, do what you need to do to survive in whatever situation you find yourself in, imo. Monday morning quarterbacks be damned.

 

[PaulD]

Please, no warning shots. Warning shots are a construct of hollywood and the Coast Guard. If you are neither a hypocrite anti-gun actor making their living playing with gun or a coastie, you have no business firing warning shots.

And if you are respecting YOUR 5th Amendment rights, then the cops will never know shots that missed were warning shots.

Any shot fired is a reflection of deadly force. If you are clear to use deadly force and choose to fire warning shots, then you will be in a position where the ADA will argue a) you weren't in need of deadly force to protect yourself and b) that the deadly force you used was therefore an assault/battery without justification. The other guys lawyer will claim in a civil trial that you were c) negligent in your use of the firearm and d) reckless in your application of force.

No warning shots. If you are going to rely on Hollywood to shape your notion of right & wrong or just & unjust then you are both screwed and no better than the bradyites.

BTW: This is my personal opinion and not one of any organization I may be associated with. I am not a lawyer and your lawyer may feel differently. But if you are exercising your 5th Amendment rights, then your lawyer has a choice of how to spin any missed shot.

I agree with what you're saying as it pertains to MA. If the laws in this state were as they should be, and we had a proper castle law, the subject wouldn't be a legal one. It would merely be a discussion of the viability of warning shots as a tactic.

 

[Bill Nance]

If you're going to fire a warning shot, you might as well "shoot to wound."

We teach people to end the threat. Sometimes that may be a simple verbal warning. Sometimes verbal and the sight of a gun in your hand. sometimes the only warning is two to the chest.

Nothing is set in stone. Every situation is different.

If I had the opportunity to warn off a 14-y/o kid I would take it. I don't want to kill anyone, especially not a kid. But Even if the threat is 12, if he's got a gun pointed at me, he's going to get shot twice at least.

We can jack ourselves mentally into "If X happens I will do Y" to the point where X may result in an appropriate response that doesn't remotely resemble Y, but if we've been jacking ourselves into "X=Y" hard and long enough, we will pull that trigger even as our brains are screaming "WAIT!"

Fluid and dynamic. That's the way real situations are and that's the way we need to train ourselves.

But in general, if you need to discharge a firearm within the city limits, you'd best be shooting AT someone or have not shot at all. warning shots, even if followed by a leathal shot, just gives an overzealous DA/civil attorney another reason to question your actions.

 

[Coyote33]

I heard about a guy who was awake in the middle of the night to shoot a raccoon he had up a tree. Around the same time, some kids come down the street, either for "parking" or some mischief, we'll never know. He decided he'd proceed and take down the 'coon. He said that car got out of there so fast you wouldn't believe it. Then he heard legend had it the "crazy guy" would shoot at you if you came near his property. I bet it bought him 20 years of trouble free living. Not really a warning shot, just a hunting shot with a second purpose through its sound and kids' stories.

 

[FreeWillie]

Free Willie, thank you so very much for your service. I was on the ground up around Dak To when guys like you pounded the surrounding rubber plantation getting me and a lot of my friends out of a deep pickle. Thanks to every one of you pilots for "Dropping in" on us!!!!!

I think I can speak for my fellow pilots, it was our pleasure Brother! Glad you made it out of that shit hole. And Thank You for YOUR service. I had it a lot easier than you did. I had a hot meal and a bed every night, bet you didn't. Bless You, Brother.

 

[drgrant]

To put it another way, I think the biggest problem with a warning shot is that regardless of state, it sends an signal that you believed the threat wasn't imminent. Saying "I fired a warning shot" and "I felt like I was in imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" is kind of a contradiction. If the threat really is imminent there is no time for a warning shot.

-Mike

 

[Coyote33]

To put it another way, I think the biggest problem with a warning shot is that regardless of state, it sends an signal that you believed the threat wasn't imminent. Saying "I fired a warning shot" and "I felt like I was in imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" is kind of a contradiction. If the threat really is imminent there is no time for a warning shot.

-Mike

I don't know if the two are exclusive. Wouldn't a "warning shot" end the "imminent harm" condition? It may not be as final or definitive at it as a non-warning shot, but the end result might be the end of the threat, with nobody dead. It is a mighty big "might", and I guess that is the individual's question to answer.

In other words, some people are not necessarily going to use deadly force, even if they think deadly force is being used against them. They would rather "warn" first. Is that illegal?

 

[TomH]

To put it another way, I think the biggest problem with a warning shot is that regardless of state, it sends an signal that you believed the threat wasn't imminent. Saying "I fired a warning shot" and "I felt like I was in imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" is kind of a contradiction. If the threat really is imminent there is no time for a warning shot.

-Mike

Situations can change instantly.

 

[PaulD]

To put it another way, I think the biggest problem with a warning shot is that regardless of state, it sends an signal that you believed the threat wasn't imminent. Saying "I fired a warning shot" and "I felt like I was in imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" is kind of a contradiction. If the threat really is imminent there is no time for a warning shot.

-Mike

I think, once again, that's a political and/or legal construct. What is an imminent threat?

An armed homeowner, with gun drawn and aimed, could be 20' away from an intruder with a 10" chef's knife in his hand. The homeowner should be able to get a shot or two off if that intruder starts advancing, but if the intruder is standing there and not moving, tactically is it worth firing a warning shot or not? I honestly don't know but neither do the legislators and judges who make the legal decisions without being there.

 

[M1911]

To put it another way, I think the biggest problem with a warning shot is that regardless of state, it sends an signal that you believed the threat wasn't imminent. Saying "I fired a warning shot" and "I felt like I was in imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" is kind of a contradiction. If the threat really is imminent there is no time for a warning shot.

-Mike

When I took LFI-1, Ayoob made a similar point. The fact that you deliberately did not shoot at the person indicates that you did not feel your life was in immediate danger. And therefore you shouldn't have been shooting at all.

 

[Bill Nance]

I don't know if the two are exclusive. Wouldn't a "warning shot" end the "imminent harm" condition? It may not be as final or definitive at it as a non-warning shot, but the end result might be the end of the threat, with nobody dead. It is a mighty big "might", and I guess that is the individual's question to answer.

In other words, some people are not necessarily going to use deadly force, even if they think deadly force is being used against them. They would rather "warn" first. Is that illegal?

It may well be in certain jurisdictions and circumstances. I would be much less likely to shoot a warning shot in Boston, Springfield or Lowell than I would in Yakima WA.

Even if it was appropriate under the circumstances.

It may be a sad fact, but the FACT is that your local DA and your local jury pool is largely determinate of any self-defense action you may take.

You live in a state where the Moonbats rule, so expect Moonbat responses to your use of force. I'm not defending overzealous prosecutors. But I AM advising you to be well awaew of your surroundings.

 

[hurley431]

late to this thread... BUT; to anyone interested in the subject of combat forces and their reactions to actually pulling a trigger when the moment comes I suggest to you "On Killing" by Col.(Ret) David Grossman. This book put all of my training into sharp focus and really helped me train and lead a fire team better. Almost no one wants to kill, it's the muscle memory of target recognition and operant conditioning which enables soldiers to do so without hesitation. According to Grossman and B.F. Skinner, this is even more essential than the fear of one's own death, as fight or flight is actually more realistically "Freeze, flight, then maybe fight." to the untrained. After my deployment, this book was a revelation (Except for the bayonet thing... a little to Freudian)

As for the OP... Warning shots have a place in ROE; but most certainly not in civil self defense, and absolutely not in this state. 100% agreement.

 

[calsdad]

I have often wondered how many "warning shots" were just people who couldn't come to grips with shooting someone, no matter how much the target deserved it

I think that is actually a pretty good explanation of what really goes on.

Most people don't want to kill another person. They can't in fact even imagine killing another person. After WW2 all sorts of studies were done on the effectiveness of bombing and the effectiveness of the average infantryman. What they found was that an awful lot of infantrymen would do stuff like shoot into the air or into the ground. It was a small portion of the total that made of the truly effective fighting capability of the average infantry unit.

The British during the Revolutionary War thought that the colonists were savages for taking aimed shots. The infantry tactics at the time could be thought of as an extension of the logic behind a firing squad - everybody fires together and therefore if somebody gets killed nobody really knows who did it. This was not the only reason they used massed fire - but it was part of it.

Think of that character "Bunny" in the movie "Platoon" - he likes it there - because he's a sociopath. Everybody else thinks it sucks and only shoots and kills reluctantly.

Normal people don't want to kill other people.

For this reason I somewhat disagree with the whole opposition to warning shots. I think a lot situations get defused when somebody ups the ante - without going full retard - and the other person realizes what they are risking - and backs down.

In the end I think each and every situation is different - and the argument that you can legislate the minutia of human behavior is ridiculous.

All the self defense advice and accounts of infantry combat I have ever read typically agree on one thing: no matter how hardened the person is, when they get a gun pointed at them and bullets start flying towards them they tend to back down and take cover. At least until the bullets stop flying.

I'm pretty sure the average or even hard core criminal who has bullets coming his way is going to back down - it won't take an actual kill shot in MOST INSTANCES - to stop and defuse the situation.

So what the law - and a bunch of you guys, are actually arguing for: is a bunch of unneccessary killing because of legal retardation.

Just for the record I'm not against shooting criminals - and I've never killed somebody so I can't speak to it - but again: every account I've ever read from somebody who has killed another person (a "normal" person that is) - says it becomes something you live with for the rest of your life.

Quite frankly I think if I was in a situation where somebody was in my house and threatening me with a knife or a gun - I would rather (perfect world scenario) blow his kneecaps off and see him in a wheel chair for the rest of his life than see him dead. I would rather see somebody pay dearly for being an a**h*** than let them off the easy way. But that's just me, I'm sort of vindictive like that.

 

[terraformer]

For this reason I somewhat disagree with the whole opposition to warning shots. I think a lot situations get defused when somebody ups the ante - without going full retard - and the other person realizes what they are risking - and backs down.

If you clear leather and the BG starts to run, then you have your de-escalation via escalation result.

How many cops fire warning shots? They don't. They miss copiously apparently, but never warning shots. If they don't get warning shots, then we sure as hell don't.

As someone pointed out above, the only time warning shots are warranted is in military and the high seas. It's part of a tradition to request a presentation of colors (high seas*) and to signal intent to a vessel which may or may not know you mean to engage in armed conflict because the other vessel may have no idea the two sides may be at war, etc because they were at sea for 6 months. This signaling is clearly not needed in a civilian defense situation.

ETA: * Ships are required to fly their colors if they come across another ship. If they don't, this is how in historical times a vessel could request said presentation of colors.

 

[calsdad]

While there is obvious psychological trauma that normal people experience when ending another human's life, I am of the opposite camp. I think that you only draw when you intend to fire. This is rule #1 of gun safety. If they happen to bug out at the sight of my barrel then great. We both get to go home and he rethinks his way of life.

By trying to kill me that person has entered in a fight to the death and I am prepared to strike first to stop him from killing me. He doesn't deserve a warning shot if he is trying to kill me. He's already given up his right to life if I have to draw. Things get hazy in these situations, but this is the outlook that I train with and consider when I chamber that top round.

Just for clarification - once they start charging me with a knife - or taking shots at me - as far as I am concerned they just declared that it's "shoot to kill " time.

If he has taking shots at me he is trying to kill me - I shouldn't have to give a criminal mercy just because he is incompetent (bad shot).

 

[calsdad]

If you clear leather and the BG starts to run, then you have your de-escalation via escalation result.

How many cops fire warning shots? They don't. They miss copiously apparently, but never warning shots. If they don't get warning shots, then we sure as hell don't.

As someone pointed out above, the only time warning shots are warranted is in military and the high seas. It's part of a tradition to request a presentation of colors (high seas*) and to signal intent to a vessel which may or may not know you mean to engage in armed conflict because the other vessel may have no idea the two sides may be at war, etc because they were at sea for 6 months. This signaling is clearly not needed in a civilian defense situation.

ETA: * Ships are required to fly their colors if they come across another ship. If they don't, this is how in historical times a vessel could request said presentation of colors.

Yeah - clearing leather and seeing the bad guy take off is the kind of thing I was thinking about. But, in my experience there are a lot situations that ratcheted down once the other person understands clearly that violence (possibly deadly) is about to be employed. I've been in a number of situation where the 'other' person was clearly looking for fight. I typically respond to that with something along the lines of: "look - you are an a-hole, you did this thing wrong, you did that thing wrong, and you did this other thing wrong. If you keep this $h!t up I am going to walk over there and beat you to death. Because you deserve it. Or - you can walk away - your choice, I'm not here to deal with your wounded ego or pride or whatever it is that is making you act like a douche - your wasting my mother effing time - time is running out - hurry up and make up your mind".

I've done that three or four times and gotten away with it every time - because every time the other person was in the wrong and wanted to get out of it by trying to start a fight.

A different situation than the implementation of deadly force maybe - but I think these types of situations are more complicated than just saying "shoot the guy dead"

They are also more complicated than legal BS surrounding the incident that started this thread - where the guy fired a warning shot - and got arrested for it. Truth of the matter is - if I remember the story correctly - the warning shot did get rid of the criminal. But the law is screwing him for it. Whereas he might actually be in less trouble if he had actually killed the guy and then lied about the actual threat so as to make it look like the shooting was justified.

So would he have been better off shooting the guy dead?

I think a legal system that says essentially you should be killing people instead of "warning" them is pretty screwed up.

 

[calsdad]

If you clear leather and the BG starts to run, then you have your de-escalation via escalation result.

How many cops fire warning shots? They don't. They miss copiously apparently, but never warning shots. If they don't get warning shots, then we sure as hell don't.

As someone pointed out above, the only time warning shots are warranted is in military and the high seas. It's part of a tradition to request a presentation of colors (high seas*) and to signal intent to a vessel which may or may not know you mean to engage in armed conflict because the other vessel may have no idea the two sides may be at war, etc because they were at sea for 6 months. This signaling is clearly not needed in a civilian defense situation.

ETA: * Ships are required to fly their colors if they come across another ship. If they don't, this is how in historical times a vessel could request said presentation of colors.

Oh yeah, I don't think cops are necessarily the best example to try and defend this type of behavior. Cops are there to project force and take control of situation and also to demand compliance. Their modus operandi (especially these days) - is shoot to kill. Kill the dog, kill the guy inside his own house (with dozens of shots) - etc.

Cops are more like soldiers - maybe even worse than soldiers in some cases as far as adhering to rules of engagement.

Like you said: they miss copiously - and what do they do? Typically they just keep shooting. A behavior that any of us here would probably get thrown in a deep hole for if we acted like that as civilians. There are numerous threads started here on NES about cases where cops came in and just started shooting at people. Not a great defense for a civilian caught in a self protection situation.

As satisfying as it might be - I'm pretty sure at trial if the jury was shown pictures of the smoking shell of my house with me standing in the middle of it with a Benelli M4 slung across my chest and a dead burglar lying on the front lawn after having been blown thru the front door - I would be going to jail.

Yet the police gets away with stuff damn close to this on a regular basis. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Philadelphia row house fires, the Marine out in CA recently, etc.

 

[PaulD]

If you clear leather and the BG starts to run, then you have your de-escalation via escalation result.

What if he doesn't run? What if he stands there, in your house?

There's a certain example I'm sure you're aware of where, legalities aside, the warning shot actually did the job. The bad guy took off and the good guy didn't have to have carry the mental burden of having shot someone.

As I said, I'm not sure a warning shot is the best tactic, but I really with the legal system didn't effectively outlaw the idea.

 

[terraformer]

What if he doesn't run? What if he stands there, in your house?

There's a certain example I'm sure you're aware of where, legalities aside, the warning shot actually did the job. The bad guy took off and the good guy didn't have to have carry the mental burden of having shot someone.

As I said, I'm not sure a warning shot is the best tactic, but I really with the legal system didn't effectively outlaw the idea.

He's not a threat if he's just standing there. Remember, the castle doctrine is not a green light to shoot anyone who walks in the door. There has to be a threat.