Producer
NES Member
I am going from the Marine thread. I am curious. Warning shots, are they really illegal? Mythbusters taught us that firing straight in the air will not kill. Can you save the assailants life by proving your gun is real?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms October Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson S&W M&P9 M2.COMP***
Warning Shots
- Thread starter Producer
- Start date
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,675
- Likes
- 8,793
You are not justified to so much as present the gun unless you are justified to SHOOT the attacker. A warning shot is an instant exhibit 1 that you did not feel that your situation reached the point that you had to shoot the attacker.
It's not that it is illegal, it is that you just proved the state's case that you were not in immediate threat of life or serious bodily harm otherwise, you would have shot to stop.
It's not that it is illegal, it is that you just proved the state's case that you were not in immediate threat of life or serious bodily harm otherwise, you would have shot to stop.
SnakeEye
Banned
only firing "directly up" causes the projectile to go into a flat spin while returning to earth thusly preventing it from reaching terminal velocity.
Firing anything but directly straight up will result in a ballistic trajectory that will allow the projectile to maintain much of its energy and indeed cause serious bodily injury or death up to several miles away.
it is highly likely that any such "warning shot" would not be fired directly up, as the structure of the hand holding a pistol naturally impart an inward (twords the body)angle.
not recomended at any rate , in any state..
Firing anything but directly straight up will result in a ballistic trajectory that will allow the projectile to maintain much of its energy and indeed cause serious bodily injury or death up to several miles away.
it is highly likely that any such "warning shot" would not be fired directly up, as the structure of the hand holding a pistol naturally impart an inward (twords the body)angle.
not recomended at any rate , in any state..
SnakeEye said:
IIRC, that happened a month or so ago. A woman got hit in the shoulder by as stray bullet from miles away.
Students of great old firearms books should recall that chapter in Hatcher's notebook. Col. Hatcher, author of Hatcher's Notebook, spent lots of time firing a machinegun straight up in the air. He set up the machinegun on the end of a dock in the middle of a lake, and recorded the results obtained.
Why waste the round and risk the injuring of someone when the bullet comes down. In an deadly force assault, shoot the assailant.
I subscribe to the Russian theory of warning shots.
Russian police believe in firing their warning shots into the bodies of the criminals. It's considered a warning to any other criminals around not to screw with them.
Regards
John
Russian police believe in firing their warning shots into the bodies of the criminals. It's considered a warning to any other criminals around not to screw with them.
Regards
John
J
Jose
Because trying to shoot a narrow part of the body, which is lower than your normal line of sight, under extreme stress is very difficult, most likely to result in a miss, and can give the attacker an opportunity to strike. The purpose of pulling a gun one someone is to stop a threat of death or (insert legal adjective used in your state here) bodily harm. The best way to do so is to aim at the center of mass and keep pulling the trigger until the threat is stopped.Producer said:
Chris already posted exactly why warning shots are a not a good idea.
Producer said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you think you can present your sidearm, & shoot someone in the leg, you'd better be prepared to defend your poor judgement in court. Why the interest in saving the bad guys life? If you are shooting anyone, it's to stop the threat of grave bodily injury or death to yourself.....not as a warning. Shoot to kill, otherwise, keep it in your pants, (or wherever your holster is.)
If you are not justified in using deadly force, then you are not justified in drawing your gun in the first place. And if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, why would try to shoot him in the leg, rather than center of mass?
If you really think that you can hit someone in the leg when they are moving, you are moving, it is in the dark, and you are full of adrenaline, then I've got to see you shoot, because you're a whole lot better than I am.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,451
- Likes
- 35,603
A former co-worker of mine fired warning shots at a noise which did not repsond to a verbal challage while he was on guard duty at a soviet base while serving in their army prior to immigrating and becoming a US citizen.Optimistic Paranoid said:
The base commander negotiated the price of the cow with a Russian peasant the next day.
1. I presume this question is not about a rehash of the Mythbusters show, but rather a question about the tactical and legal implications of a "warning shot."
2. I'd stay away from shots fired into the air (any angle) or into the ground; frankly, they are a hazard to non-involved people.
3. It is quite correct that firing a round before the situation has risen to the level of imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury is legally questionable. It is not correct that having fired a warning shot that was successful in causing the aggressor to change his mind proves the negative of that level.
4. In my house we have a plan for what to do if we detect an invader downstairs, and part of it involves a shot fired from the assigned vantage point, which is upstairs, into the fascia beam that supports the end of the first floor opening of the stairway cut (the bottom of the slanted portion of the ceiling). The plan calls for when this round is fired, what to do if the person persists in climbing the stairs, and what to do if he turns around and leaves. I have no doubt that having fired this round, whatever the person does in response, will not change the evaluation of the propriety of what we did.
2. I'd stay away from shots fired into the air (any angle) or into the ground; frankly, they are a hazard to non-involved people.
3. It is quite correct that firing a round before the situation has risen to the level of imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury is legally questionable. It is not correct that having fired a warning shot that was successful in causing the aggressor to change his mind proves the negative of that level.
4. In my house we have a plan for what to do if we detect an invader downstairs, and part of it involves a shot fired from the assigned vantage point, which is upstairs, into the fascia beam that supports the end of the first floor opening of the stairway cut (the bottom of the slanted portion of the ceiling). The plan calls for when this round is fired, what to do if the person persists in climbing the stairs, and what to do if he turns around and leaves. I have no doubt that having fired this round, whatever the person does in response, will not change the evaluation of the propriety of what we did.
Producer
NES Member
K-DUB said:
Some crazy teenage girl with Stockholm syndrome is attacking you, like that Patty Hearst girl.
Your probably right. Too many people in this world anyways. Shoot her in the chest, watch the life drain from her eyes.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,826
- Likes
- 20,622
Producer said:
If she has a gun aimed at me or mine, sounds like a good plan to me!
Producer, you are only justified in using deadly force if you, or another innocent is in IMMEDIATE danger of death or grave bodily injury.
If you are in IMMEDIATE danger of death or grave bodily injury, you don't have time to shoot some in the leg (if you could hit their leg, which you can't) and hope they change their mind. If you wait that long, you may well be dead.
It doesn't matter to me who is trying to kill me. Whether it is Charles Manson or 16-year-old girl from the suburbs. Dead is dead. It would be terrible to have to shoot an attacker, no matter who that attacker is. What would be worse would be not surviving that attack.
From a legal perspective, shooting at someone (whether at their chest, head, or leg) is using deadly force.
Before using a gun for self defense, you have to ask yourself whether you are capable of killing someone who is trying to kill you. Many people decide they could not do so. If someone decides they could not do so, then they have no business using a firearm for self defense.
Last edited:
Producer
NES Member
Don't miss understand me, I do agree. I am capable of taking a scum bags life. But I just speculating on certain (possibly very remote) situations that you do not shoot to kill. Like RKG's situation, maybe a stockholm situation, some Harrison/Willis movie where his family is kidnapped and he has to rob the company of the secret code, lol I don't know.
We have all seen this vid.
We have all seen this vid.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
It doesn't matter to me what the motivation of the attacker is -- that doesn't change whether deadly force is justified or not.
As for SWAT snipers shooting the gun out of someone's hand, I can't see where I would ever be in that situation. If I had the time (and equipment and skill) to take such a shot, I've got enough time to employ the ancient art of Run Fu.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
