Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Elderly hunter beaten to death with his rifle by ATV trespassing "kids"

  1. #1
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Elderly hunter beaten to death with his rifle by ATV trespassing "kids"

    Defense: Airport victim pointed rifle before fatal assault | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
    Silva fired the weapon into the air shortly before the Sept. 27 attack and later was disarmed by his attackers. He said one of the men "bludgeoned" Silva with the weapon.

    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Two take-aways from this -

    - "warning shots" only serve to warn the other person that you will not shoot them. (We all know why warning shots are illegal. This is about why they are not practical.)

    - and this is the hard one: discretion is the better part of valor. Or, if someone threatens to come back and beat the snot out of you it is probably better to stop what you are doing (no matter how innocent, how unprovoking, and how much you really/truely want to keep doing it) and withdraw. Even if Silva was on his own land the way to deal with trespassers is not to threaten them with deadly force. This in no way excuses the trespassers (in general or in this specific case) from their obligation to be lawful as well. But we have here a situation where someone was on property not theirs being interferred with in the course of their lawful and peaceful activity by a bunch of folks who I will, for the sake of discussion, give the benefit of the doubt and say did not know they were trespassing. Silva had no authority to enforce trespass against them. At best he had an obligation to report the trespass to the airport authorities.

    None of this excuses in any way the other guy's alleged assault. It also in no way expresses my outrage that the other members of the mob are not (presently) being criminally charged. It also in no way expresses my outrage that the others in that group apparently did not intervene to prevent/stop the beating.

    In a "perfect" world all this would have fallen into place and the worst injury to either side would have been hurt feelings. Unfortunately our world is not perfect and we will feel the consequences of our misjudgements.

    And for the record, I am well up there in the top 10 of folks who find it difficult to walk away from wrong-doing. (About the only thing in my favor is that I have never seen personal combat as the first choice of how to resolve disagreements,) I'm also well aware (oh, boy am I ever well aware!) that trying to do things the right way will not always result in things being made all better.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    SNIP - "warning shots" only serve to warn the other person that you will not shoot them. (We all know why warning shots are illegal. This is about why they are not practical.)
    I knew warning shots are often ill-advised. I had no information that they were illegal.

    Can you point me towards an authority?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I knew warning shots are often ill-advised. I had no information that they were illegal.

    Can you point me towards an authority?

    A warning shot is a threat to shoot if the ation/activity warned against is not stopped. That makes it an assault. Assaults are illegal, and even more so when committed with a deadly weapon.

    What saves a warning shot from being de facto attempted homicide of any stripe is that by definition a warning shot is never intended to hit anybody. Yet there are cases of someone (intentionally or accidentally) missing and actually hitting someone. Those are usually prosecuted as negligent homicide/2nd degree murder.

    I am not going to dredge up case law on this. The definition of assault is well known and accepted here.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A warning shot is a threat to shoot if the ation/activity warned against is not stopped. That makes it an assault. Assaults are illegal, and even more so when committed with a deadly weapon.

    What saves a warning shot from being de facto attempted homicide of any stripe is that by definition a warning shot is never intended to hit anybody. Yet there are cases of someone (intentionally or accidentally) missing and actually hitting someone. Those are usually prosecuted as negligent homicide/2nd degree murder.

    I am not going to dredge up case law on this. The definition of assault is well known and accepted here.

    stay safe.
    controll your testimony..
    Never tell anybody that you fired a warning shot!
    tell them that you shot at the bad guy in self defense to stop the threat.
    if your "aim is off" so that the bad guy is not shot,,, but the threat stops,,, good...
    if that first shot misses, but the bad guy does not stop,,, shoot again,, but aim better this time.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A warning shot is a threat to shoot if the ation/activity warned against is not stopped. That makes it an assault. Assaults are illegal, and even more so when committed with a deadly weapon.

    What saves a warning shot from being de facto attempted homicide of any stripe is that by definition a warning shot is never intended to hit anybody. Yet there are cases of someone (intentionally or accidentally) missing and actually hitting someone. Those are usually prosecuted as negligent homicide/2nd degree murder.

    I am not going to dredge up case law on this. The definition of assault is well known and accepted here.

    stay safe.
    Well.....


    • (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.


    Cite please. Or not.

    In Missouri it is not clearly defined that a "warning shot" is illegal. Nor is a warning shot even defined. Verbal legal gymnastics may commence.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

    Pay particular attention to (3) (6) (7) and (9).

    As close as I could get to a warning shot being illegal is in (7) "at random", then again in (9) "at any person." A warning shot "is not random" and a warning shot is not shooting "at a person."

    However, http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c000-099/0210000750.htm does provide for:

    3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243.
    Yes, unlawful use of weapon is RSMo 571.030 and is one of those statutes that is referred to in that pesky "conforms exactly with" part.

    IANAL and YMMV.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Well.....


    • (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.


    Cite please. Or not.

    In Missouri it is not clearly defined that a "warning shot" is illegal. Nor is a warning shot even defined. Verbal legal gymnastics may commence.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

    Pay particular attention to (3) (6) (7) and (9).

    As close as I could get to a warning shot being illegal is in (7) "at random", then again in (9) "at any person." A warning shot "is not random" and a warning shot is not shooting "at a person."

    However, http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c000-099/0210000750.htm does provide for:

    Yes, unlawful use of weapon is RSMo 571.030 and is one of those statutes that is referred to in that pesky "conforms exactly with" part.

    IANAL and YMMV.
    1 - the incident happened in Virginia. The law in Virginia applies. The conversation between Citizen and me involves persons both residing in Virginia. The fact that the thread is not in the Virginia sub-forum has nothing to do with anything.

    2 - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault - the Common Law definition of assault.

    3 - The crime of assault defined in the Code of Virginia http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...00+cod+18.2-57 .

    That the same factors may not prevail where you reside is a wonderous and wonderful curiosity, as well as a mild amusement (as in it was mildly enjoyable to briefly explore the matter).

    Do not spar with me. I am old. I know how the game is played and how to play the game.

    Had you wished, instead, to caution me about attempting to generalize from a specific and limited situation I would have accepted that as appropriate.

    And for your edification, I am a lawyer http://thelawdictionary.org/lawyer/ I am not an attorney. Wirth a little bit more learning you too could be a lawyer.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    1 - the incident happened in Virginia. The law in Virginia applies. The conversation between Citizen and me involves persons both residing in Virginia. The fact that the thread is not in the Virginia sub-forum has nothing to do with anything.

    2 - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault - the Common Law definition of assault.

    3 - The crime of assault defined in the Code of Virginia http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...00+cod+18.2-57 .

    That the same factors may not prevail where you reside is a wonderous and wonderful curiosity, as well as a mild amusement (as in it was mildly enjoyable to briefly explore the matter).

    Do not spar with me. I am old. I know how the game is played and how to play the game.

    Had you wished, instead, to caution me about attempting to generalize from a specific and limited situation I would have accepted that as appropriate.

    And for your edification, I am a lawyer http://thelawdictionary.org/lawyer/ I am not an attorney. Wirth a little bit more learning you too could be a lawyer.

    stay safe.
    I agree, sparring with you is unwise for the most part and in most situations. But, facts are facts and the Virginia conversation outside of the Virginia sub-forum, without qualifiers, is important, especially to those less knowledgeable as you.

    Lawyer or attorney, to me that is a distinction without a difference. I have little desire to become either a lawyer or an attorney, too many of those about as it is already.

    I concede defeat, stand properly rebuked, and retreat with as much grace as possible.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I don't know of any law that specifically outlaws warning shots. However, in almost all incorporated areas, firing a gun is illegal and, therefore, firing a warning shot is illegal. Now, a shot directly at the threat would be considered self-defense and, therefore, legal. A shot in the air or into the ground would surely NOT be considered self-defense, and would run afoul of any local or State laws against the discharge of a firearm.

    If you are threatened to the point where you feel the need to use a firearm to protect yourself, do everything you can to ensure each and every round strikes the threat center mass. Period. Any other shot is just plain stupid and, in many locales, illegal for at least the above reason.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I agree, sparring with you is unwise for the most part and in most situations. But, facts are facts and the Virginia conversation outside of the Virginia sub-forum, without qualifiers, is important, especially to those less knowledgeable as you.

    Lawyer or attorney, to me that is a distinction without a difference. I have little desire to become either a lawyer or an attorney, too many of those about as it is already.

    I concede defeat, stand properly rebuked, and retreat with as much grace as possible.
    I am never above firing a parting shot. Allow me to do so -

    A reading of the Missouri statute indicates that the legislature purposely ignored the difference in Common Law between an assault and a battery and, for good and sufficient reasons known only onto them, chose to statutorily define what everybody in the civilized world understands as a battery as an assault.

    And as for your legal education - you can only address an act(ion) within the confines of when and where it occurred. If you wish to move from the specific to seek hypothetical answers to questions you could ask "Well, what if that took place in Missouri instead of Virginia?", or to the very general by asking "Is it possible that there are exceptions and if so, where would they take place?"

    In closing, let me admit that I may posses an unfair advantage - or, actually, two unfair advantages. I have been trained in classical Logic and Argumentation by the Jesuit priests at Georgetown University. They make the Spanish Inquisition look inviting. I have also been trained in the philosophy and exercise of pilpul* http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12153-pilpul by folks who make the Jesuit priests look inviting.

    stay safe.

    * Pilpul, for the unaware, is the intellectual equivalent of The Code Duelo.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member FireStar M40's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    63

    There's Nothing Wrong With A Warning Shot..

    I'm of the firm belief that.. There's Nothing Wrong With A "Warning Shot".

    It's quite simple and effective in its use and application under the right circumstances.

    I'm "WARNING" you. Your continued aggressive actions toward me will result in you being "SHOT"!

    That's my use of a "Warning Shot".

    FireStar M40
    Why you never pick a fight with a old man.

    Seeing they're too old and tired to fight,

    they'll just shoot your butt instead.

    I'm a "OLD MAN"!

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A warning shot is a threat to shoot if the ation/activity warned against is not stopped. That makes it an assault. Assaults are illegal, and even more so when committed with a deadly weapon.

    What saves a warning shot from being de facto attempted homicide of any stripe is that by definition a warning shot is never intended to hit anybody. Yet there are cases of someone (intentionally or accidentally) missing and actually hitting someone. Those are usually prosecuted as negligent homicide/2nd degree murder.

    I am not going to dredge up case law on this. The definition of assault is well known and accepted here.

    stay safe.
    If true, that makes no sense. If lethal force is justified under the law, but I personally opt for a warning shot in a humane attempt to not end a life, then I become guilty of assault? No reasonable lesser level of force is available? Basically the law becomes that I am obligated to either shoot or die?

    That's just nucking phutz.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    If true, that makes no sense. If lethal force is justified under the law, but I personally opt for a warning shot in a humane attempt to not end a life, then I become guilty of assault? No reasonable lesser level of force is available? Basically the law becomes that I am obligated to either shoot or die?

    That's just nucking phutz.
    Assault in the first & second degree (RSMo 565.050 & 060) do not have the language that assault in the third degree has. The language of RSMo 565.070 could be extended to a warning shot, maybe.

    Regardless, I agree, a warning shot used as the second to last "lesser means" may be (should be) found justified, depending on the circumstances, the skill of my attorney, and lastly, the decision of twelve good men and true.

    RSMo 565.070. 1. - Assault in the third degree. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:
    (3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5650000070.HTM
    RSMo 563.026. 1. - Justification generally.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000026.HTM
    RSMo 563.031. 1. - Use of force in defense of persons.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000031.HTM
    Why battery is not separately defined in Missouri statute is a quandary, as skidmark correctly identifies. The phrase "causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to another person" seems to address the act of battery; "any physical contact with another person" in conjunction with addressing assault.

    I defer to those with legal acumen to explain the distinction.

    QUOTE: What we do know is
    Submitted by robertd75172 on Tue, 12/11/2012 at 9:06 am.

    QUOTE:
    What we do know is this elderly man would still be alive if a gang of young thugs had not RETURNED! Why did they come back and kill him????
    QUOTE

    Exactly!!! That's premeditated, they came back to do harm and in this case murder.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2012/12/defe...-fatal-assault
    This posted comment is very insightful if factual.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135

    No

    I do not fire "warning shots". This is a waste of ammunition. If my weapon is out I will use voice commands, not a "warning shot" to motivate my threat. If I am forced to engage, I will be on target and I will stop the threat.
    A WS may go anywhere. A ricochet can be extremely dangerous in an urban environment.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    If true, that makes no sense. If lethal force is justified under the law, but I personally opt for a warning shot in a humane attempt to not end a life, then I become guilty of assault? No reasonable lesser level of force is available? Basically the law becomes that I am obligated to either shoot or die?

    That's just nucking phutz.
    Basically the notion is that if you have enough time to get off a warning shot the threat of death or serious bodily injury was not imminent. It probably was highly likely and probably was going to happen very soon, but "very soon" happens slower than "imminent".

    Our mutual friend User presents a wonderful seminar on the use of deadly force in which he explains the law, the practicalities, and his concept of what the perfect self defense client would look like. He also explains why warning shots are not considered self defense. He does it better than I can by orders of magnitude.

    The bottom line is not that "the law becomes that I am obligated to either shoot or die" but the law is that you must wait until the very last moment. It's not about "I might die" but "there is no question that I will die if I don't, and it will happen RFN if I don't." (Not a second or three from now when he finishes running 21 feet to reach me, or not .5 seconds from now when he finishes drawing from his holster which he has not even started to do yet.)

    Of course, you are free to act before the threat is "imminent", and should you do so I will not only try to be in the front row at your trial but to come and see you on visiting days.

    You are encouraged to consider these words. You are in no way obligated to act based upon them.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Basically the notion is that if you have enough time to get off a warning shot the threat of death or serious bodily injury was not imminent. It probably was highly likely and probably was going to happen very soon, but "very soon" happens slower than "imminent".

    Our mutual friend User presents a wonderful seminar on the use of deadly force in which he explains the law, the practicalities, and his concept of what the perfect self defense client would look like. He also explains why warning shots are not considered self defense. He does it better than I can by orders of magnitude.

    The bottom line is not that "the law becomes that I am obligated to either shoot or die" but the law is that you must wait until the very last moment. It's not about "I might die" but "there is no question that I will die if I don't, and it will happen RFN if I don't." (Not a second or three from now when he finishes running 21 feet to reach me, or not .5 seconds from now when he finishes drawing from his holster which he has not even started to do yet.)

    Of course, you are free to act before the threat is "imminent", and should you do so I will not only try to be in the front row at your trial but to come and see you on visiting days.

    You are encouraged to consider these words. You are in no way obligated to act based upon them.

    stay safe.
    Well, yes. The whole point is figuring out the law. And, then how that law is applied by the government. Etc.

    If the law really is that, its an absurdity insofar as it closes off certain avenues of potential action that might be desirable. For example, if attacked from outside 21 ft with a knife, who closes to within say 20 feet when I get clear of leather and get off the warning shot into the ground and persuade the guy to change his mind. Or, say, I witness a lethal force assault or grievous injury assault or rape on another person. Under the explanation (misapplication by courts and prosecutors?), I cannot fire a warning shot into the ground at the instant I witness it, but must spend time moving close enough to hit a moving target without hitting a moving victim? This is nuts. It may be the law, but its nuts. It totally knocks out a viable graduation on the scale of escalating force.

    The same illogic could be applied to defensive display of a firearm. Instead of dissuading a knife or bat threatener, you would then have to wait until actually attacked to go for the gun. Or, retreat without displaying the gun, which would seriously erode stand-your-ground.

    The more I think about this, the more suspicious I become. Warning shots used to be somewhat a part of the game. Who erased warning shots and why?

    There's something going on here.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14

    that's how it goes when you are inept.

    all of us GET inept, eventually. Best recognize that fact and act accordingly. I won't bother to keep living once I reach that point. That's not a life that's even REMOTELY worth living, in my opinion. The day that I have to ADMIT that punks can take advantage of me (if they want) is the day I check out of this world.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    my policy is once a handgun is upholstered, its being aimed and shot at an actual target (this takes the guess work out of what to do with a ready gun). With a rifle, one I bring it to a firing position then it will be discharged at a target.

    All the uncertainty is decided prior to having the firearm in a ready state .. a car driving around?

    Ya can't find a safe place where the car cannot go? I doubt it ... as far as self defense goes....

    Citizens arrest is another animal ... you have to know the laws regarding this aspect ...

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Well, yes. The whole point is figuring out the law. And, then how that law is applied by the government. Etc.

    If the law really is that, its an absurdity insofar as it closes off certain avenues of potential action that might be desirable. For example, if attacked from outside 21 ft with a knife, who closes to within say 20 feet when I get clear of leather and get off the warning shot into the ground and persuade the guy to change his mind. Or, say, I witness a lethal force assault or grievous injury assault or rape on another person. Under the explanation (misapplication by courts and prosecutors?), I cannot fire a warning shot into the ground at the instant I witness it, but must spend time moving close enough to hit a moving target without hitting a moving victim? This is nuts. It may be the law, but its nuts. It totally knocks out a viable graduation on the scale of escalating force.

    The same illogic could be applied to defensive display of a firearm. Instead of dissuading a knife or bat threatener, you would then have to wait until actually attacked to go for the gun. Or, retreat without displaying the gun, which would seriously erode stand-your-ground.

    The more I think about this, the more suspicious I become. Warning shots used to be somewhat a part of the game. Who erased warning shots and why?

    There's something going on here.
    The bolded part is the important part. Virginia law does not allow for what you wish to do. As a matter of fact, Virginia calls that the crime of "brandishing". There are other states that do allow for the defensive display of a firearm. You are free to relocate to your choice of those states. But while you remain in Virginia you are stuck.

    As for "a viable graduation on the scale of escalating force" - it's a nice concept but that slso will not fly in Virginia. You are stuck with "force sufficient". If you happen to choose a force that is not sufficient you may choose another one but there are generally only two levels - deadly force and everything else. It may be good to make cops adhere to some administratively determined sliding scale along a continuum of force, but I do not want that for us non-cops. KISS as opposed to YMMV.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The bolded part is the important part. Virginia law does not allow for what you wish to do. As a matter of fact, Virginia calls that the crime of "brandishing". There are other states that do allow for the defensive display of a firearm. You are free to relocate to your choice of those states. But while you remain in Virginia you are stuck.

    As for "a viable graduation on the scale of escalating force" - it's a nice concept but that slso will not fly in Virginia. You are stuck with "force sufficient". If you happen to choose a force that is not sufficient you may choose another one but there are generally only two levels - deadly force and everything else. It may be good to make cops adhere to some administratively determined sliding scale along a continuum of force, but I do not want that for us non-cops. KISS as opposed to YMMV.

    stay safe.
    No offense, but that just made no sense at all.

    Telling me I am stuck with the law isn't a helpful comment. I already know I'm stuck with the law, if it is the law. I was criticizing such a law.

    And, the comment about compelling a force-continuum is backwards. Nowhere did I say people should be required to give a warning shot. How did you turn that around?
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-13-2012 at 01:58 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ....
    And, the comment about compelling a force-continuum is backwards. Nowhere did I say people should be required to give a warning shot. How did you turn that around?
    From this:
    It totally knocks out a viable graduation on the scale of escalating force.
    If you want to codify a "scale of escalating force" then you are looking at compelling a continuum of force. While cops have such they seem to rarely get into trouble for "excessive force" until the excessiveness is egregiously so. Do I think that non-cops will get the same general pass? Not on your life!

    As I noted, there is but a two-stage "scale of excalating force" in effect (in Virginia - keep OCforMe and his Missouri law out of it): 1) deadly force, and 2) everything else.

    As for the useless comment that you are stuck with the law - perhaps I should have been less subtle and identified a change to that situation as your legislative project for the 2014 session.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    From this:


    If you want to codify a "scale of escalating force" then you are looking at compelling a continuum of force. While cops have such they seem to rarely get into trouble for "excessive force" until the excessiveness is egregiously so. Do I think that non-cops will get the same general pass? Not on your life!

    As I noted, there is but a two-stage "scale of excalating force" in effect (in Virginia - keep OCforMe and his Missouri law out of it): 1) deadly force, and 2) everything else.

    As for the useless comment that you are stuck with the law - perhaps I should have been less subtle and identified a change to that situation as your legislative project for the 2014 session.

    stay safe.
    But, there's not "everything else" if what you say is true. Warning shots and defensive displays are excluded according to your reports.

    Perhaps instead of saying the force continuum, I should have said a force continuum.

    I see and understand your point about legal recognition of warning shots and defensive displays becoming an obligation if formally recognized. I don't happen to agree that they would become obligations, but I agree the law could be perverted by a prosecutor or judge into an obligation.

    In any event, I stick with my position. A defender is forced to shoot or die even in situations where a warning shot might have avoided the whole business. And, in situations where a defensive display might avert the need for shooting, the defender is forced to either shoot or retreat. This is just nuts.

    This all assumes you are correct about the law. I say this for other readers who may not be keeping as close a track of our conversation; not to invalidate your report.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    .... This is just nuts.

    ....
    See? We really do agree.

    And our two legal debaters head for a cup of coffe as the sun sets.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by FireStar M40 View Post
    I'm of the firm belief that.. There's Nothing Wrong With A "Warning Shot".

    It's quite simple and effective in its use and application under the right circumstances.

    I'm "WARNING" you. Your continued aggressive actions toward me will result in you being "SHOT"!

    That's my use of a "Warning Shot".

    FireStar M40
    There is a very good reason not to fire a "warrning shot", law, or no law. That is, if the BG does not stop the bullet (that is you hit him, not a warning shot) what does stop the bullet?

    My PERSONAL feelings on the matter, the weapon should not be displayed unless you are willing to use it. The trigger should not be pulled unless you are ready to use the BG as a bullet stop. If you "miss" (that is fire a warning shot...where, or in what, is that bullet going to stop). That is how the NYPD ended up shooting one BG and 9 bystanders. (Empire State Building incident)

    So far, in 42 years of carry, my holstered OC pistol stopped one potentially bad incident, before it went to far, but other than cleaning and practice, it has never had to leave it's holster.

    However, if my holstered pistol does not do the job, my unholstered pistol will...making as sure as is possible that nothing or no-one esle might possible be injured by a miss of the BG.
    Last edited by hermannr; 12-13-2012 at 11:45 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    I am firmly against warning shots, legal or not. I will not tolerate being trespassed and threatened, or forced to change my lawful behavior, for unlawful behavior. They had already threatened him, he should have dropped them on their return, IMO he would have been justified. I had two incidents of trespass where I did draw on them. One took down a section of my fencing to take a shortcut across my property with a mobile home. Another was a hunter discharging a firearm just a few feet from my front door. Both decided to get combative when told to leave, both got the helll out quickly(ran) when I brought my 1911 to bear. Had either charged me I would have stopped them.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-14-2012 at 10:08 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •