Warning shots are not helping anyone

[PaulD]

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.

The point here is that there's plenty of grey area. Is a stranger who's standing (not advancing or retreating) holding a chef's knife a threat or not? Personally, I'd say he is.

The flip side of this is that a warning shot isn't deadly force. It's a warning shot. If the gun intentionally not aimed at a person but fired, that's not deadly force.

As for castle doctrines, those vary state to state. I'm sure at least some states would be fine with warning shots.

 

[terraformer]

The point here is that there's plenty of grey area. Is a stranger who's standing (not advancing or retreating) holding a chef's knife a threat or not? Personally, I'd say he is.

The flip side of this is that a warning shot isn't deadly force. It's a warning shot. If the gun intentionally not aimed at a person but fired, that's not deadly force.

As for castle doctrines, those vary state to state. I'm sure at least some states would be fine with warning shots.

The knife changes things. But no, the castle doctrines in other state's don't have any impact on "warning shots". Other areas of the country may be more reasonable about them, but that has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.

 

[calsdad]

The point here is that there's plenty of grey area. Is a stranger who's standing (not advancing or retreating) holding a chef's knife a threat or not? Personally, I'd say he is.

The flip side of this is that a warning shot isn't deadly force. It's a warning shot. If the gun intentionally not aimed at a person but fired, that's not deadly force.

As for castle doctrines, those vary state to state. I'm sure at least some states would be fine with warning shots.

A guy standing 20 feet away from you in an open room with no obstructions between you and him - is an immediate threat, especially if you are holstered. If he's got a room sized maze of furniture between you and him - then he would probably not legally be considered a threat until he starts making a move.

I remember being told by a couple of self defense instructors that a person with a knife can close 20ft of distance and stab you before you can unholster and shoot. I've seen the demonstration done - and it's true.

Guy holding knife (in most situations) = immediate threat.

 

[mark056]

A guy standing 20 feet away from you in an open room with no obstructions between you and him - is an immediate threat, especially if you are holstered. If he's got a room sized maze of furniture between you and him - then he would probably not legally be considered a threat until he starts making a move.

I remember being told by a couple of self defense instructors that a person with a knife can close 20ft of distance and stab you before you can unholster and shoot. I've seen the demonstration done - and it's true.

Guy holding knife (in most situations) = immediate threat.

1.5 seconds have been clocked in demonstrations per Ayoob.

 

[M1911]

1.5 seconds have been clocked in demonstrations per Ayoob.

Our entire LFI-1 class did the Tueller drill. IIRC, we ran from 1.5 - 2.0 seconds. And that included some older, out of shape folks.

 

[PaulD]

A guy standing 20 feet away from you in an open room with no obstructions between you and him - is an immediate threat, especially if you are holstered. If he's got a room sized maze of furniture between you and him - then he would probably not legally be considered a threat until he starts making a move.

I remember being told by a couple of self defense instructors that a person with a knife can close 20ft of distance and stab you before you can unholster and shoot. I've seen the demonstration done - and it's true.

Guy holding knife (in most situations) = immediate threat.

See? More grey area and exactly my point. I never said anything about being holstered. If there's someone in my house, I'd hope the only reason I'd be holstered upon finding that person is I walked in from the outside. I can't speak for other people's houses, but I can guarantee that nobody will break into mine without making a lot of noise and, therefore, I wouldn't be holstered. Again, more grey area and situational variances.

The OP mostly focused on whether a warning shot is a good idea from a legal perspective. Saying we shouldn't use warning shots because of legal aspects is giving into the moon bats as much as any other "reasonable" gun control measure.

 

[enbloc]

.

 

[coachjpg]

If you choose to own a gun for protection, you have a moral and legal responsibility to get proper training. That training should cover when lethal force is justified, and what happens after a shooting, including the psychological and legal consequences. The NRA Personal Protection courses address just these issues. There are many other good sources for this training also (LFI, etc.), but the NRA courses are a good (and relatively inexpensive) place to start.

If any of us uses lethal force, the legal system will investigate, and that investigation report will likely include any online or e-mail statements we've made about the use of lethal force. So when you post, imagine the prosecuting attorney reading your posting to the jury, because that's what will happen.

Lethal force rules vary widely. Imagine an old lady in a wheelchair who gets tired of being repeatedly robbed, so she sits up with her shotgun waiting for the robbers to break in again. They do, and she kills one. In Texas, they'd probably give her a community service award. In Massachusetts, they'd probably imprison her for first degree murder.

I was taught a rule that works everywhere, including Massachusetts. Lethal force is justified only when there is an imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. Imminent means you have to wait if you can. Unavoidable means you can't get away, and you couldn't have avoided getting into the situation. If you can't avoid the threat, and you can't safely wait, then you shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat is no longer imminent and unavoidable, you stop shooting.

So warning shots are never justified. They also place the community at risk, since your warning shot could hit someone. Leave them for Hollywood and naval gunfire.

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

The legal system is certainly a mess, but it is also the reality we face. You need to understand the system that will judge your actions, so you can plan your actions accordingly, and train yourself accordingly.

Please, no warning shots. Warning shots are a construct of hollywood and the Coast Guard.

Having competed with and trained with the Coast Guard Academy's Combat Arms folks, I would advise treating them with respect. They make good use of their large training budgets, and they're very good.

At sea, a shot across the bow is a clear form of communication. Ashore, a warning shot is usually illegal and almost always an irresponsible act.

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.

A person without kneecaps can still kill you. You should only shoot to stop the threat. It's not your job to punish. Your job is to protect yourself and your family.

Once he goes down I end my defense, I don't kick a person in the balls when they aren't a threat. But while they are standing I won't back off.

Most people shoot better from the prone position. Just because they're horizontal doesn't mean they're no longer a threat.

 

[PaulD]

If you choose to own a gun for protection, you have a moral and legal responsibility to get proper training.

A legal responsibility? So your constitutionally protected rights are predicated on proper training?

 

[Stef]

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.

I might have missed something, but who was advocating the use of warning shots in the first place?

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I might have missed something, but who was advocating the use of warning shots in the first place?

What, are PSAs not allowed?!

 

[terraformer]

What, are PSAs not allowed?!

A PSA which was inspired by true events.

 

[Stef]

A PSA which was inspired by true events.

Which were????

 

[joeendris]

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.

And remember, you have 1/4 of a second to make that decision....DAs have as long as they want (ie, 6 months) to dissect your decision.

If there's no advance, there's not a "threat", per the law. At least, that's how I'm interpretting it...

 

[coachjpg]

A legal responsibility? So your constitutionally protected rights are predicated on proper training?

As we all know, our current legal system infringes upon our constitutionally guaranteed rights in many ways. We can argue about what should be, but I was speaking about the system as it is today.

We all know that many states require a permit to possess and/or carry firearms, and many require training before they'll issue a permit.

Even if you live in an area that does not require training before allowing you to exercise your rights, if you defend yourself and end up in court, your case will be much stronger if you can document that you have proper training in the use of lethal force. So in effect, you need to have proper training if you want to have a chance of success in court.

So yes, your constitutionally protected rights are predicated on proper training. You may have to get the training in order to get a permit to exercise your constitutionally protected rights. You will certainly wish you had that training if you ever defend yourself and end up in court.

I'm not saying I'm happy about this. I'm just expressing my understanding of the realities we face today.

This whole discussion about warning shots worries me. People know better than to take warning shots if they have taken an NRA Personal Protection course, or any of the quality courses offered by outfits like LFI. If anyone is unclear on this, I suggest they take an NRA Personal Protection course, or at least read Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme".

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Which were????

Use some skills of deduction: someone fired a warning shot, and is in deep shit

That was not so hard.

 

[appraiser]

A guy standing 20 feet away from you in an open room with no obstructions between you and him - is an immediate threat, especially if you are holstered. If he's got a room sized maze of furniture between you and him - then he would probably not legally be considered a threat until he starts making a move.

I remember being told by a couple of self defense instructors that a person with a knife can close 20ft of distance and stab you before you can unholster and shoot. I've seen the demonstration done - and it's true.

Guy holding knife (in most situations) = immediate threat.

here is my take on "edged weapons".

the Tueller Maneuver has been discussed over and over again, and that "21 feet" rule has been tossed out there for years,but the dirty little secret of the Tueller drill is IMHO that it is the minimum distance a trained professional can pull it off, and get away with using it as a defense. I do not consider myself a trained professional when it comes to firearms. If someone is 40 feet away from me with an edged weapon, and they start advancing on me, as far as I am concerned they are fair game. It is going to take someone like me longer than 1.5 seconds to react, break leather, get on target, and get 2 shots off.

the distance figure in Tueller was reversed engineered. They figured out the amount of time a trained professional needed to get 2 shots off, and then used an average distance that a person could cover in that time.

Some people are going to run faster, some slower, but I am not going to ask someone with a knife how fast they did the 50 yard dash in gym class. I know I am going to react slower and have a lower likelihood of getting my first shot center mass. That means I need more than that 1.5 second / 21 foot number that keeps getting thrown out there.

I can't and won't toss a number out there, because every situation is different. All I know is that as far as I am concerned, 21 feet is going to be way too close for comfort for me.

 

[Bill Nance]

here is my take on "edged weapons".

the Tueller Maneuver has been discussed over and over again, and that "21 feet" rule has been tossed out there for years,but the dirty little secret of the Tueller drill is IMHO that it is the minimum distance a trained professional can pull it off, and get away with using it as a defense. I do not consider myself a trained professional when it comes to firearms. If someone is 40 feet away from me with an edged weapon, and they start advancing on me, as far as I am concerned they are fair game. It is going to take someone like me longer than 1.5 seconds to react, break leather, get on target, and get 2 shots off.

the distance figure in Tueller was reversed engineered. They figured out the amount of time a trained professional needed to get 2 shots off, and then used an average distance that a person could cover in that time.

Some people are going to run faster, some slower, but I am not going to ask someone with a knife how fast they did the 50 yard dash in gym class. I know I am going to react slower and have a lower likelihood of getting my first shot center mass. That means I need more than that 1.5 second / 21 foot number that keeps getting thrown out there.

I can't and won't toss a number out there, because every situation is different. All I know is that as far as I am concerned, 21 feet is going to be way too close for comfort for me.

The Tueller drill is used as a training tool to get people to realize how incredibly fast someone can be on top of you with a knife before you can possibly shoot them. It's not supposed to be a realistic guideline for when to draw. 1.5 seconds from "Go" to 2 in a target is already a very good performance that takes a lot of practice to even get close to.

But in the real world, you don't get a magic "go." In the real world you may not get much or any warning at all from apprehension of a possible threat to "it's time to shoot."

We train people to be working towards 1.5 seconds from the start buzzer to the second round fired. But before that 1.5 seconds starts, you'll have to apprehend there Is a threat, analyze the threat as requiring lethal force and make the decision to shoot, all of which is likely to take a LOT longer than 1.5 seconds, even if the first thing you see is a guy charging you with a knife.

Our reaction times in the real world are a lot slower than most people realize. The simple element of disbelief that "this is actually happening?" is a built-in delay that most of us will have in most circumstances.

 

[Stef]

Use some skills of deduction: someone fired a warning shot, and is in deep shit

Thank you Clouseau, but I figured that much. I was looking for something a bit more substantive.

If you can't help being a dick on Christmas, maybe you should just change your username to bostonasshat.

 

[OfficerObie59]

This.... + a billion. Nobody should EVER utter the term "warning shot" when regarding a deadly force (gun involved) confrontation with another human.

I disagree with this because it fails to consider a wartime ROE, see below.

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.

I agree. I can contest that, despite being ordered never to do so otherwise, I saw warning shots save numerous lives of Iraqi civilians.

The problems in that situtation are ones of both language and cultural difference, or not knowing what is expected with military security. In the same vein no one wants to take a life that may have no ill-intent towards you--however, the one language everyone seems to understand is having a 5.56 sent in one's direction.

Case in point: I was working a gate in Ramadi, and we had a Mercedes slamming towards the S curve at a high rate of speed. The driver of the Mercedes, who we later determined was bringing a local offical to an appointment to meet the base commander, apparently thought his boss' status rated driving like an a-hole. The gate gunner, sensing what may have been an impending threat, shot a couple warning shots with his 249 over the roof of the car--and in a one-in-a-million shot, hit a bird in mid air that dropped onto the hood of the car. The car stopped in a split second. Had he driven another 10 yards, everyone inside never would have made it to the appointment.

There were countless other times when we had vehicles driving around or near us in erratic manners while we were doing convoy escorts. There's no way to tell if they're setting you up for an IED, VBIED, or ambush, or they're just acting like knuckleheads. Sometimes a warning shot across their bow cleared up the confusion in a hurry.

To contrast with the civilian construct, I think the doctrine preached regarding lack of a warning shot isn't done completely out of a need for safety, but instead with an eye toward both safety and litigation. As calsdad mentioned, I can think of circumstances where someone is willing to take upon extra risk by firing a warning shot to avoid taking life even where they would otherwise be completely justified in stopping the threat with deadly force. The problem is this creates two closely related points of conflict.

First, the law is unlikely to recognize altruism in your actions in giving the threatening party a chance to change his actions. Hell, the attorneys for the prosecution and civil plaintiff are duty bound to attempt to show you couldn't possibly have been action in the best interests of the bad guy. But the main reason it won't be believed is because it goes against human nature, to give someone's life such an extra chance when they are acting in such disregard for yours. But I don't think its out of the realm of possibility for some people, be it for moral or religious reasons, to want to avoid taking a life at all costs, even with increased risk to their own. The problem is, will a jury believe it?

Second, as someone else said, it suggests--whether or not it's actually the case--that the threat was not at all as imminient as necessary to be legally justified. The sad state of affairs is that you're legally on safer ground if you use deadly force to stop a threat at the first presented oppurtunity than giving a reason to a prosecutor or civil attorney to use your actions against you to try and convince a jury of an intent that only you and God know didn't exist.

In general, I agree warning shots have no place in civilian self-defense scenario. But it's important to remember that self-preservation in the decision to use deadly force extends far beyond the time and place of the threatenting activity and well into the courtroom.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Thank you Clouseau, but I figured that much. I was looking for something a bit more substantive.

If you can't help being a dick on Christmas, maybe you should just change your username to bostonasshat.

Try finding the information yourself for once. If Im being a dick, youre being....well, decorum prohibits me from saying it here.

 

[jbize1]

I say bostonasphalt2 and Stef settle this old fashion way, talking about a duel baby, Ill bring the camera to put it up on youtube, I'm sure there is someone on NES that has some dueling pistols

PS you guys have total wearing the 18th century attire, this will be great..

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I say bostonasphalt2 and Stef settle this old fashion way, talking about a duel baby, Ill bring the camera to put it up on youtube, I'm sure there is someone on NES that has some dueling pistols

PS you guys have total wearing the 18th century attire, this will be great..

LOL

My furstration comes from the idea that someone who is an NRA instructor would question the reason for a post from a group like Comm2A saying "please don' use warning shots"...given the knowledge such an instructor should have from their course of work. THen again, maybe I ask for too much.

Sorry for grinching up this thread, Stef.

 

[Stef]

LOL

My furstration comes from the idea that someone who is an NRA instructor would question the reason for a post from a group like Comm2A saying "please don' use warning shots"...given the knowledge such an instructor should have from their course of work. THen again, maybe I ask for too much.

Or then again, maybe you're just plain missing the point.

First, this wasn't a statement from the group Comm2A. "This is my personal opinion and not one of any organization I may be associated with" should have been a tip in that regard.

Second, the validity of the advice is not, and never has been, in question. I was simply looking for the catalyst for the post. Sorry if that gets your underoos in a twist.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Our entire LFI-1 class did the Tueller drill. IIRC, we ran from 1.5 - 2.0 seconds. And that included some older, out of shape folks.

I've actually trained on stopping a charging subject with live fire, and it can be done quite cheaply with two people.

Take an old lawn mower base and mount a plastic manequin to it, and attach a 30ft rope to the base. Stand behind the shooter, and quickly pull the rope to simulate a charging bad guy. Viola.

You can also tape a fake object of some kind to an outstretched hand to use as a knife (optional) and put a Justin Beeber tee shirt on the manequin (mandatory) to simulate realisticness.

 

[economist]

While interesting discussion, it's worth mentioning that much of it is irrelevant in reality. All that matters is the evidence after the fact. A hole in a floor is just that. It only becomes a "warning shot" when someone decides to label it. You, the shooter, are not talking. So the the question is, why would the police or others label this miss a warning shot? As for the threat of a man standing still vs. one moving vs. a knife from some distance or another, etc., note that some of these things are evident after the fact and many are not. And there is no guarantee that investigators are going to be correct in their review. The relevant question is whether the facts as observed after the incident will or will not support a self defense claim. Note the exclusion of anything going on in the unobservable minds of all involved. You are not charged or convicted based on what happened, but on the evidence whether correctly interpreted or not.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Or then again, maybe you're just plain missing the point.

First, this wasn't a statement from the group Comm2A. "This is my personal opinion and not one of any organization I may be associated with" should have been a tip in that regard.

Second, the validity of the advice is not, and never has been, in question. I was simply looking for the catalyst for the post. Sorry if that gets your underoos in a twist.

gotcha, my bad.

 

[M1911]

You can also tape a fake object of some kind to an outstretched hand to use as a knife (optional) and put a Justin Beeber tee shirt on the manequin (mandatory) to simulate realisticness.

Justin Bieber t-shirt? Now that definitely justifies deadly force.

 

[drgrant]

If you choose to own a gun for protection, you have a moral and legal responsibility to get proper training.

Sorry but this is complete BS- someone would argue that your position is actually out of line with morality. (It's morally wrong to say someone cannot defend themselves simply because they are not "trained". )

Further there is nothing under MGL or for that matter, most state or federal law, that mandates a legal responsibility of training, for those using deadly force to protect themselves. If there was, the world we live in would be even more ****ed up than it is now.

Self defense is a HUMAN RIGHT. Period, end, full stop.

There is no "responsibility" inherent other than for someone to act lawfully- and I'd even argue that when it comes down to grits, even that takes a back seat to defending oneself (or their family, etc. )

-Mike

 

[jbize1]

wait, so no duel ?!?!?! Was hoping for a post xmas gift of some sort, , glad you guys settled it, didnt want this thread going full retard..