Warning shots are not helping anyone

drgrant said:
Even if you do miss, intent is everything. "I fired a warning shot" is not legally equivalent to "I fired my gun at him to try to stop him".

-Mike
Click to expand...

Yes. Whatever one thinks about warning shots apart from legal considerations, the difference between a warning shot and a miss or ND is someone talking too much.
 
xtry51 said:
If you're going to be at risk of 20 years in jail anyway, shoot to kill.

If he was dead, she would be free.
Click to expand...

If you shoot to kill rather than shoot to stop, you are far more likely to get convicted on a murder charge.

And I would never want a prosecutor to find comments on the web promoting "shoot to kill."

The difference between shooting to kill and shooting to stop is not the point of aim. The difference is the intent and when you stop.

If I shoot Mongo twice in the chest and he collapses, and then I walk over to his prone body and shoot him in the head, I've shot to kill. And I've also probably committed murder. If I shoot Mongo twice in the chest and he collapses, and then I stay behind cover while calling the police and Mongo bleeds out before they arrive, then I've shot to stop and I am in a far better legal position, even though Mongo is dead in both scenarios.
 
Last edited:
I said shoot to kill. Not execute once incapacitated. If I shoot in defense I'm aiming at the head or spine. I'm doing that because the best way to stop a threat is to have a brain/upper spine hit that kills near instantly. This argument over semantics is always ridiculous. If I just wanted to stop the threat I'd be aiming at his legs.

My intent when aiming center mast or head is to kill. To call it anything else is IMO stupid.

And I don't care what other people think about me posting it.
 
xtry51 said:
I said shoot to kill. Not execute once incapacitated. If I shoot in defense I'm aiming at the head or spine. I'm doing that because the best way to stop a threat is to have a brain/upper spine hit that kills near instantly. This argument over semantics is always ridiculous. If I just wanted to stop the threat I'd be aiming at his legs.

My intent when aiming center mast or head is to kill. To call it anything else is IMO stupid.

And I don't care what other people think about me posting it.
Click to expand...

That semantic difference is what will keep you out of jail or put you in it. Laws are balanced on just such fine distinctions of language.

Your goal is to stop the attack and the best way to do that is shooting center of mass. Arms and legs are far smaller targets, they move much faster than center of mass, and a shot to the arm or leg is far less likely to incapacitate the attacker.
 
As set in my ways as I am, I was trained to "shoot to kill." A target that isn't dead, isn't "incapacitated" (I'm not saying I would execute someone, because that would land me in prison.)
Knowing that even a difference in wording like this is enough to make or break a prosecution, I would just keep my big mouth shut until I spoke to an attorney.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
That semantic difference is what will keep you out of jail or put you in it. Laws are balanced on just such fine distinctions of language.

Your goal is to stop the attack and the best way to do that is shooting center of mass. Arms and legs are far smaller targets, they move much faster than center of mass, and a shot to the arm or leg is far less likely to incapacitate the attacker.
Click to expand...

You went ahead and assumed I give a rats ass what the law says while I'm in a situation where I feel my life is threatened. I don't.
 
Tough talk is easy when you are at the keyboard. I suspect it is a lot harder when facing a murder charge.

Personally, if I am ever unlucky enough to be in this sort of situation, I want to win both fights - the first fight with the perp and the second with the court system.
 
cockpitbob said:
When I was 17 my folks had a guy over for dinner. He was a judge. In a manner a little too forceful for the dinner table he told me to never draw a gun unless I had to use it. Never fire a warning shot and never shoot to wound. Never draw unless I needed to have a dead body in front of me.

I've always remembered that dinner.
Click to expand...

I second this motion. Thanks for sharing. i love it.
 
M1911 said:
Tough talk is easy when you are at the keyboard. I suspect it is a lot harder when facing a murder charge.

Personally, if I am ever unlucky enough to be in this sort of situation, I want to win both fights - the first fight with the perp and the second with the court system.
Click to expand...

I think worrying about the second judicial fight while still in the first deadly one is a good way to get yourself killed.

It would be nice to win the second one, but you need to survive the first one to make it to court.
 
drgrant said:
The problem is that "intentional warning shots" create legal problems because they insert doubt into the equation about the validity of the defender's claim of being in fear for their life., because it begs the obvious question- "If you were in fear for your life, why weren't you shooting at the attacker?" Warning shots make people ask questions that they wouldn't ask otherwise.

Nobody should be "on the record" as taking a warning shot, ever. The police don't do it, for the same reasons- it would introduce serious doubt into their claims of needing lethal force to respond to a threat. The jury is going to be thinking the question "Well, if the guy was that much of a problem then why didn't the cop just shoot him?" Warning shots create an invitation to get the jury to start questioning the intent and mindset of the defender.

I am guessing the poor lady that Terraformer just mentioned ran her mouth to an investigator at some point or another, and at some point or another the words "I didn't want to hurt him" or "I fired a warning shot" dribbled out of her mouth, or something to that effect. If she had said "I was shooting at him to stop him from chasing me, I thought he was going to kill me" things might have been different.

I agree that jurors don't understand these situations but in order to understand what can happen legally, you have to think about how they are going to view things in a "sanitized glove box" sort of environment. Warning shots just don't do well in court.

-Mike
Click to expand...

[/thread]
 
M1911 said:
If I shoot Mongo twice in the chest and he collapses, and then I walk over to his prone body and shoot him in the head, I've shot to kill. And I've also probably committed murder. If I shoot Mongo twice in the chest and he collapses, and then I stay behind cover while calling the police and Mongo bleeds out before they arrive, then I've shot to stop and I am in a far better legal position, even though Mongo is dead in both scenarios.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I mentioned in another thread that, IMHO, one of the best things one can do when involved in an SD shooting is to render first aid. It helps abrogate any argument a prosecutor may have that your intent was to kill (and thus possibly murder), rather than simply stop the threat.
 
xtry51 said:
I think worrying about the second judicial fight while still in the first deadly one is a good way to get yourself killed.

It would be nice to win the second one, but you need to survive the first one to make it to court.
Click to expand...

I see the legal battle as even more important. At least if I get killed, my family gets a hefty insurance payout. No so if I'm in jail for the rest of my natrual life.
 
xtry51 said:
I think worrying about the second judicial fight while still in the first deadly one is a good way to get yourself killed.
Click to expand...

You still refuse to understand the distinction between "shooting to kill" and "shooting to stop," which is rather curious given that one of your posts says you would shoot to stop. Specifically, you wrote:

I said shoot to kill. Not execute once incapacitated. If I shoot in defense I'm aiming at the head or spine. I'm doing that because the best way to stop a threat is to have a brain/upper spine hit that kills near instantly.
Click to expand...

What you are essentially saying is that you would shoot to stop, though you refuse to admit it. Once the threat stops you stop shooting. Your goal was to stop the threat, not to kill, and once the threat stops (he is incapacitated), you stop shooting. If your goal was to kill, then even though he is incapacitated you would keep shooting to ensure that he was dead. In either case, the perp may well end up dead.

Second, I see little difference in the tactics that I am suggesting. If you need to use deadly force, shoot for what is called the center of mass (but is really the upper chest), because that is the largest target and is likely to incapacitate the perp quickly. The head is a harder target to hit because it is smaller, more mobile, and armored -- shots have glanced off people's skulls before when the hit wasn't centered. But if shots to the center of mass don't stop the perp, then you transition to the head. That is standard self-defense (and police) training dogma.

Third, actually hitting the head and/or spine while you are moving, the perp is moving, in low light is easier said than done.

Shooting someone in the center of mass, or head if center of mass fails, may well kill them. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to stop the attack, and intent is the very crux of the difference between murder and justifiable homicide.

Shooting to stop means that once the user stops being a threat, you stop shooting, which you already agreed to in the quote above.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
You still refuse to understand the distinction between "shooting to kill" and "shooting to stop," which is rather curious given that one of your posts says you would shoot to stop. Specifically, you wrote:



What you are essentially saying is that you would shoot to stop, though you refuse to admit it. Once the threat stops you stop shooting. Your goal was to stop the threat, not to kill, and once the threat stops (he is incapacitated), you stop shooting. If your goal was to kill, then even though he is incapacitated you would keep shooting to ensure that he was dead. In either case, the perp may well end up dead.

Second, I see little difference in the tactics that I am suggesting. If you need to use deadly force, shoot for what is called the center of mass (but is really the upper chest), because that is the largest target and is likely to incapacitate the perp quickly. The head is a harder target to hit because it is smaller, more mobile, and armored -- shots have glanced off people's skulls before when the hit wasn't centered. But if shots to the center of mass don't stop the perp, then you transition to the head. That is standard self-defense (and police) training dogma.

Third, actually hitting the head and/or spine while you are moving, the perp is moving, in low light is easier said than done.

Shooting someone in the center of mass, or head if center of mass fails, may well kill them. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to stop the attack, and intent is the very crux of the difference between murder and justifiable homicide.

Shooting to stop means that once the user stops being a threat, you stop shooting, which you already agreed to in the quote above.
Click to expand...

I think you see what I'm saying, but not how I'm approaching the situation. I'll try this. If I got to chose the outcome between shooting an aggressor who I honestly thought was endangering my life and:
1) he dies
OR
2) he's only wounded but stops

I'd chose 1) every time because I don't want that guy to have the opportunity to do it again. I have a very low opinion of burglars, thugs and people who beat women.

You're right, I wouldn't walk up and execute them once they're down or shoot them in the back, but while I am shooting I'm hoping for the kill shot, not the stop shot.
 
Last edited:
Another case of warning shots not helping anyone.
http://famm.org/facesofFAMM/StateProfiles/RonaldThompson.aspx

20 years mandatory despite the judge calling the sentence a "crime unto itself". Guess who was the prosecutor? Angela Corey. She even appealed the sentence reduction the original judge gave.

Do not trust your "peers" to nullify a verdict. It doesn't happen enough to be even remotely reliable. Don't fire warning shots ever and keep your mouth shut in the aftermath.
 
terraformer said:
Another case of warning shots not helping anyone.
http://famm.org/facesofFAMM/StateProfiles/RonaldThompson.aspx

20 years mandatory despite the judge calling the sentence a "crime unto itself". Guess who was the prosecutor? Angela Corey. She even appealed the sentence reduction the original judge gave.

Do not trust your "peers" to nullify a verdict. It doesn't happen enough to be even remotely reliable. Don't fire warning shots ever and keep your mouth shut in the aftermath.
Click to expand...

Another case in "gun friendly" Florida. The reason that States Attorney Corey went after him was simply because she could and for no other reason. Another notch on her gun, so to speak. Yet, here in Mass I hear Michael Graham on WTTK talk repeatedly about warning shots and how they are a deterrent. I called him up one day when the topic was being discussed, and he hung up on me because it didn't matter what the law says, it after all, all about the "natural truth." People have to get over this idea that justice is somehow just, and that the right will prevail in the end.
 
mark056 said:
Another case in "gun friendly" Florida. The reason that States Attorney Corey went after him was simply because she could and for no other reason. Another notch on her gun, so to speak. Yet, here in Mass I hear Michael Graham on WTTK talk repeatedly about warning shots and how they are a deterrent. I called him up one day when the topic was being discussed, and he hung up on me because it didn't matter what the law says, it after all, all about the "natural truth." People have to get over this idea that justice is somehow just, and that the right will prevail in the end.
Click to expand...

Michael Graham will be no where to be seen when one of his listeners has the misfortune of listening to him. Now, if he actually coughs up significant money for the person's defense I will retract this next statement but Graham is clearly an imbecile out to increase his ratings and make a buck on other people's stupidity.
 
And again people calling for and imposing these laws should be hunted down and culled from the herd. Nothing else will stop this madness from spreading.

These prosecutors and judges are "just following the law". Remember that. They completely believe what they are doing is right and would rather see an good person die in prison than "do the right thing."
 
Last edited:
'Natural Truth.' ROFL

His watered down arguments and shouting down reasonable people cancelled his show in my car years ago.
 
Do not trust your "peers" to nullify a verdict
Click to expand...

If someone is well informed to fully understand the concept of jury nullification (a concept that the jury will not be told, and any attorney who tries does so at risk of sanctions) their chance of surviving voir dire are slim.

People have to get over this idea that justice is somehow just, and that the right will prevail in the end.
Click to expand...
+1 to that.

As a defendant who beat a bogus prosecution once told me "Justice is a commodity just like any other, and how much you get depends on how much you are able to pay for.". Even that fails on occasion.
 

Similar threads

ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
MUST WATCH IF YOU ARE SELLING OR PLANNING TO SELL A FIREARM AND ARE NOT AN FFL
Replies
19
Views
583
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Shots fired in Hyannis, nearby schools are told to shelter in place.
2
Replies
36
Views
832
rogersmithiii
R
Does anyone have
2
Replies
30
Views
879
appraiser
appraiser
Preban or not
2 3
Replies
65
Views
1K
not new guy
N
Back
Top Bottom