Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
No matter where the shot is placed, you never shoot to kill; but you always shoot to live.
No matter where the shot is placed, you never shoot to kill; but you always shoot to live.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
"Warning shot" is NOT a good idea!
- Thread starter MamaLiberty
- Start date
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
Any warning shots I fire will fall into one of three categories:
1. Oops I missed. You got lucky that time.
2. Warning: I will shoot you again if I have to.
3. Go away big mean animal who won't heed any other deterrent (only if in the proper environment).
A warning shot just means you have one less round to use if you need it.
Any warning shots I fire will fall into one of three categories:
1. Oops I missed. You got lucky that time.
2. Warning: I will shoot you again if I have to.
3. Go away big mean animal who won't heed any other deterrent (only if in the proper environment).
A warning shot just means you have one less round to use if you need it.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
What if there was fear that he might hit his cousin who was getting beat up? I think I would justify a warning shot in that case. You wouldn't want to accidently kill who you were trying to protect.
What if there was fear that he might hit his cousin who was getting beat up? I think I would justify a warning shot in that case. You wouldn't want to accidently kill who you were trying to protect.
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Well, probably one of them needed some relief.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell you shot them outside... that's just silly. If they are threatening you... shoot to kill. It shouldn't matter where they are unless there's no possible way for them to get you. Other than that... if they are coming at you threatening you with bodily harm... kill them. Because you don't know if they might have a knife or not... you don't know if they might have a gun in their waistband... or a iron pipe or something... just kill them if they're coming at you... and if they're in your house... kill them. Of course... be sure to make sure it's not grandma raiding the fridge... but as soon as you ascertain that it's a thief... kill them.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Just an FYI we don't shoot to KILL we shoot to stop the threat! Saying you shot to kill is a good way to make a trip to the big house!
Just an FYI we don't shoot to KILL we shoot to stop the threat! Saying you shot to kill is a good way to make a trip to the big house!
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
Now I'm not advocating just killing people willy nilly... that's just psycho... but if they're in your home and on your property and they're wearing masks... I'm sorry, but I have a wife and daughter and I can't take the chance that the criminal or criminals might be able to over power me... even after shot, they could try and take me down and then go after my wife and daughter... so, I've trained to shoot to kill. It's for the best.
autosurgeon wrote:
Who's this "WE" you speak of kemosabe?? If someone is in my house threatening my family... I shoot to kill. I don't take any chances. If you're not thinking you're going to kill them... but instead, maybe just wing them... you might just end up dead. Why is killing someone for threatening your life a bad thing? If they're on your property and coming at you... kill them.
Now I'm not advocating just killing people willy nilly... that's just psycho... but if they're in your home and on your property and they're wearing masks... I'm sorry, but I have a wife and daughter and I can't take the chance that the criminal or criminals might be able to over power me... even after shot, they could try and take me down and then go after my wife and daughter... so, I've trained to shoot to kill. It's for the best.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
I always thought it was a dumb statement as well. Hasn't anyone seen NCIS, CSI or other crime shows? Messing with the crime scene implies you feel guilty. Leave the scum bag where he falls and explain yourself plainly.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
I always thought it was a dumb statement as well. Hasn't anyone seen NCIS, CSI or other crime shows? Messing with the crime scene implies you feel guilty. Leave the scum bag where he falls and explain yourself plainly.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
Warning shots;
I feel in some situations a warning shot is a very viable option to stop an attack without wounding or killing a person or animal.
I/We live in a fairly rural area where violent criminal activity is quite low, our biggest threat to our well being is a wild or feral animal. If I have a mama black bear approaching me to defend her blueberry patch that Ihappen to beraiding for my use, A shot toa treenear where she is standing is likely to stop her approach without orphaning her 1-3 cubs. The same goes for the rapidly expanding wolf population in this area. if a dangerous situation can be diffused or halted by safely firing a warning shot, that will be my first choice.
Warning shots against people;
Again, a very viable alternative to killing or wounding that person in some situations. I am not going to wait until I am involved in a physical altercation before drawing my weapon, because it may be too late at that point and I might not be able to draw or shoot to defend myself once physical contact has been made.
Lets look at this scenario; (something similar happened to me not long ago)
You get flagged down by a stranded female motorist. You don't see anything hinky about the situation while your still in your vehicle so you exit your vehicle, upon exiting you see what the problem is! there are 2 drunks fistfighting on the other side of the vehicle that you did not originally see.
One of the drunks now focuses theirrage on you in their drunken fit and starts threatening you and coming at you aggressively. Takes a few swings while calling you some colorful names. You try to retreat but they still come at you, you do not know if they have a weapon or not, but they keep approaching and getting more and more aggressive. Do you draw and shoot? Do you draw and warn that if they continue to approach that you will shoot them. What do you do if they keep coming?
I would fire a warning shot first! (into the snow or ground depending on the season) now if this did not get enough of there attention to stop them and they continue to approach, then they are taking a double-tap to the chest!
This way I feel the aggressor was given more than fair warning that if they did not immediately stop they would be shot and it would alsolet them know that "yes the gun is loaded and I will use it on you next"Plus I feel the muzzle-flash andreport would disorient them enoughto break their train of thought enoughofwhat they are attempting to do.
In my unpleasant situation, I exited the vehicle with a Maglite that held "3" D-sized batteries before a saw what was happening. I was able to block the aggressors blows with the Maglite, and get a couple defensive strikes in to disable the aggressor while I tried to call 911, (that situation had a17 minute response time by the sheriff's deputyBTW) Did that drunken aggressor earn the right to be shot and killed by me? I do not think so. But if a weapon was clearly visible in their hand, it would have been a no-brainer. And I would have fired a warning shot first before firing into them.
Oh, the kicker to that story, at 1:00 A.M. another deputycalled me on my cell phoneso he could locate andtry toarrest me for aggravated battery. I ignored his request to meet him at another location and refused to say anything without an attorney representing me. I got a letter a week later from the prosecutor that I would not be charged for defending myself. So If I would have shot and killed the aggressor, where do you think I would be right now? Probably not at home typingfor an Internet forum thread!
The main part of any defensive situation where you are forced to defend yourself, Do not speak with anyone without an attorney present. Many innocent people are wrongly rotting in prison for rightfully defending themselves because the police intimidated them, or tricked them into saying things to get them convicted. Absolutely nothing is to ever be said to anyone without proper legal representation! Since you chose to exercise your 2A rights, do not waive your 4A or 5A rights afterwards. Your life could depend on it!
Warning shots;
I feel in some situations a warning shot is a very viable option to stop an attack without wounding or killing a person or animal.
I/We live in a fairly rural area where violent criminal activity is quite low, our biggest threat to our well being is a wild or feral animal. If I have a mama black bear approaching me to defend her blueberry patch that Ihappen to beraiding for my use, A shot toa treenear where she is standing is likely to stop her approach without orphaning her 1-3 cubs. The same goes for the rapidly expanding wolf population in this area. if a dangerous situation can be diffused or halted by safely firing a warning shot, that will be my first choice.
Warning shots against people;
Again, a very viable alternative to killing or wounding that person in some situations. I am not going to wait until I am involved in a physical altercation before drawing my weapon, because it may be too late at that point and I might not be able to draw or shoot to defend myself once physical contact has been made.
Lets look at this scenario; (something similar happened to me not long ago)
You get flagged down by a stranded female motorist. You don't see anything hinky about the situation while your still in your vehicle so you exit your vehicle, upon exiting you see what the problem is! there are 2 drunks fistfighting on the other side of the vehicle that you did not originally see.
One of the drunks now focuses theirrage on you in their drunken fit and starts threatening you and coming at you aggressively. Takes a few swings while calling you some colorful names. You try to retreat but they still come at you, you do not know if they have a weapon or not, but they keep approaching and getting more and more aggressive. Do you draw and shoot? Do you draw and warn that if they continue to approach that you will shoot them. What do you do if they keep coming?
I would fire a warning shot first! (into the snow or ground depending on the season) now if this did not get enough of there attention to stop them and they continue to approach, then they are taking a double-tap to the chest!
This way I feel the aggressor was given more than fair warning that if they did not immediately stop they would be shot and it would alsolet them know that "yes the gun is loaded and I will use it on you next"Plus I feel the muzzle-flash andreport would disorient them enoughto break their train of thought enoughofwhat they are attempting to do.
In my unpleasant situation, I exited the vehicle with a Maglite that held "3" D-sized batteries before a saw what was happening. I was able to block the aggressors blows with the Maglite, and get a couple defensive strikes in to disable the aggressor while I tried to call 911, (that situation had a17 minute response time by the sheriff's deputyBTW) Did that drunken aggressor earn the right to be shot and killed by me? I do not think so. But if a weapon was clearly visible in their hand, it would have been a no-brainer. And I would have fired a warning shot first before firing into them.
Oh, the kicker to that story, at 1:00 A.M. another deputycalled me on my cell phoneso he could locate andtry toarrest me for aggravated battery. I ignored his request to meet him at another location and refused to say anything without an attorney representing me. I got a letter a week later from the prosecutor that I would not be charged for defending myself. So If I would have shot and killed the aggressor, where do you think I would be right now? Probably not at home typingfor an Internet forum thread!
The main part of any defensive situation where you are forced to defend yourself, Do not speak with anyone without an attorney present. Many innocent people are wrongly rotting in prison for rightfully defending themselves because the police intimidated them, or tricked them into saying things to get them convicted. Absolutely nothing is to ever be said to anyone without proper legal representation! Since you chose to exercise your 2A rights, do not waive your 4A or 5A rights afterwards. Your life could depend on it!
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Oooo I'd not say a word to police. Not even to give my side of the story. I'd first call 911 to report the incident... then, I'd call a lawyer and tell them to get over to my house asap to talk with police. I will not talk to police about an event... ever. Let my lawyer to the talking. Me... I envoke my 5th Amendment rights and say nothing.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
That is fine as well. I guess I'm saying, don't screw with the crime scene.
I am a member of US Concealed Carry and they send a card that shows what you should do.
Al this sounds reasonable and will stop you from making a statement that might come back and bite you in the butt later.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
That is fine as well. I guess I'm saying, don't screw with the crime scene.
I am a member of US Concealed Carry and they send a card that shows what you should do.
Al this sounds reasonable and will stop you from making a statement that might come back and bite you in the butt later.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
It's too late. If I were on a jury I'd only have half the truth until I read some of the statements made on this forum.
Self defense is shooting to stop; shooting to kill is murder. This is the common law precedent older than any of us, unless you live in a castle law state.
It's too late. If I were on a jury I'd only have half the truth until I read some of the statements made on this forum.
Self defense is shooting to stop; shooting to kill is murder. This is the common law precedent older than any of us, unless you live in a castle law state.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Aiming for center mass does not evince an intent to kill rather than merely stop, but announcing it on the internet does.
For your sake, I hope you never see a jury.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
lol, who said anything about trying to "wing" somebody? Always aim for center mass, because that's the best way to STOP a threat.
Aiming for center mass does not evince an intent to kill rather than merely stop, but announcing it on the internet does.
For your sake, I hope you never see a jury.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
Sell your pistol... sell your human killing guns. Get a tazer and pepper spray... because you obviously don't want to own a weapon designed to kill human beings.
You play stupid word games "Shoot to stop the threat" ... with the caveat that you always aim for center mass... let me see... that's usually in the heart. Now, if the perp is like those guys down in California with the ballistic armor and AKs... then where do you aim?
Cops train to shoot to kill. Make no mistake about it... assault rifles and pistols are designed for killing humans. If you think that shooting to kill is murder... get rid of your guns. Otherwise, you're a poser who owns guns because he needs an ego boost or because he thinks it makes him look cool.
Guns are not toys... they are human killing tools.
Sell your pistol... sell your human killing guns. Get a tazer and pepper spray... because you obviously don't want to own a weapon designed to kill human beings.
You play stupid word games "Shoot to stop the threat" ... with the caveat that you always aim for center mass... let me see... that's usually in the heart. Now, if the perp is like those guys down in California with the ballistic armor and AKs... then where do you aim?
Cops train to shoot to kill. Make no mistake about it... assault rifles and pistols are designed for killing humans. If you think that shooting to kill is murder... get rid of your guns. Otherwise, you're a poser who owns guns because he needs an ego boost or because he thinks it makes him look cool.
Guns are not toys... they are human killing tools.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
If the threat requires me to kill him, say due to ballistic armor, that is not my fault. If the perp dies due to center of mass hits, not my fault. If I demonstrate intent to kill, that is a different story.
What do you suppose the law has to say about all this in most states?
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
You seem to have a hard time understanding that the very problem is your intent to kill every criminal you come across, and the very thing that will save some of us if we come in front of a jury is that we had no intent to kill anybody, but were rather forced into it after being forced to use a potentially lethal weapon to defend ourselves.
The law permits you to use potentially deadly force to defend yourself. Show me where there is a law saying you get to intentionally kill anybody.
I have no qualms about killing to defend myself. That doesn't mean I want to kill anybody. I'd rather not have to fire because mere display was sufficient, or find out later that my assailant survived at the hospital.
A jury is going to look at someone who talks like you as a person who wants to kill criminals, to be judge, jury, and executioner. They're going to wonder that you wouldn't have shot the guy anyway, even if he surrendered after seeing your weapon. Personally, I suspect you would shoot a surrendered robber just because you want to kill criminals. God forbid the perp is wearing body armor, because a jury is going to look at a person like you and assume the head shot you were forced to make was a coup de grace, which is murder.
If the threat requires me to kill him, say due to ballistic armor, that is not my fault. If the perp dies due to center of mass hits, not my fault. If I demonstrate intent to kill, that is a different story.
What do you suppose the law has to say about all this in most states?
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
You're the one playing stupid word games. You seem to lack understanding of "intent".
You seem to have a hard time understanding that the very problem is your intent to kill every criminal you come across, and the very thing that will save some of us if we come in front of a jury is that we had no intent to kill anybody, but were rather forced into it after being forced to use a potentially lethal weapon to defend ourselves.
The law permits you to use potentially deadly force to defend yourself. Show me where there is a law saying you get to intentionally kill anybody.
I have no qualms about killing to defend myself. That doesn't mean I want to kill anybody. I'd rather not have to fire because mere display was sufficient, or find out later that my assailant survived at the hospital.
A jury is going to look at someone who talks like you as a person who wants to kill criminals, to be judge, jury, and executioner. They're going to wonder that you wouldn't have shot the guy anyway, even if he surrendered after seeing your weapon. Personally, I suspect you would shoot a surrendered robber just because you want to kill criminals. God forbid the perp is wearing body armor, because a jury is going to look at a person like you and assume the head shot you were forced to make was a coup de grace, which is murder.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
What I highlighted in lime also makes no sense. The potential deadly force is a bullet in the magazine of your weapon. It is always potential deadly force... however, shooting your gun is always deadly force... even if you miss... the force itself, if it makes contact with your target is deadly force. Guns are not toys.. they're designed to kill people... hence the term deadly. Potentially deadly is like saying kinda pregnant... it's an oxymoron.
And finally... if I wanted to kill criminals... I would go looking for them like a vigilante... there are plenty of places to go and find criminals to kill...but that isn't me... and I said before that I would not condone that type of action...but if they come into my store or my home with a weapon.... I will kill them to make sure that me and my family live. The criminal brought it to me... they did not have to rob me... they did not have to commit armed robbery... but the minute they do.. they forfeit their life.
Liberals like you should just give up your guns and get tazers and pepper spray... because the use of deadly force to you is this thing that can only happen in extremely special circumstances that only a lawyer could understand... and by your standards... more than half of those defending themselves would be tried for murder.
As for the OP's point... warning shots, if not shot straight up... can kill someone who's innocent... if you fire your weapon in defense of yourself... you had better fire it at the person who is the threat.
marshaul wrote:
Just like all liberals.... you cannot argue without using a logical fallacy. The first clause highlighted in red is a classic Strawman. I never said I would do any such thing. I have no intent to kill every criminal I come across nor did I ever say that. I really don't even know why I continue to argue with a bunch of children. Learn to debate... stop using logical fallacies and maybe, just maybe you might be able to formulate a proper defense of your position.
What I highlighted in lime also makes no sense. The potential deadly force is a bullet in the magazine of your weapon. It is always potential deadly force... however, shooting your gun is always deadly force... even if you miss... the force itself, if it makes contact with your target is deadly force. Guns are not toys.. they're designed to kill people... hence the term deadly. Potentially deadly is like saying kinda pregnant... it's an oxymoron.
And finally... if I wanted to kill criminals... I would go looking for them like a vigilante... there are plenty of places to go and find criminals to kill...but that isn't me... and I said before that I would not condone that type of action...but if they come into my store or my home with a weapon.... I will kill them to make sure that me and my family live. The criminal brought it to me... they did not have to rob me... they did not have to commit armed robbery... but the minute they do.. they forfeit their life.
Liberals like you should just give up your guns and get tazers and pepper spray... because the use of deadly force to you is this thing that can only happen in extremely special circumstances that only a lawyer could understand... and by your standards... more than half of those defending themselves would be tried for murder.
As for the OP's point... warning shots, if not shot straight up... can kill someone who's innocent... if you fire your weapon in defense of yourself... you had better fire it at the person who is the threat.
MarlboroLts5150
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
No they don't my friend. They train the same as the military does, they shoot center-mass to stop the threat. Shooting center-mass on a most likely moving target gives the greatest possibility of stopping the BGs actions, period. Most of the time the BG will die from his wounds. But it is not with the INTENT of killing the BG. The only exception to this would be Special Forces, SEALS, Rangers, SWAT teams, and the like, for obvious reasons.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
When did I say I would convict someone who made a mistake in a situation they never asked for? You're a different story; you've evinced a premeditated intent to kill should any criminal provoke you, regardless of how much force is actually required to stop the threat.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
You think I don't know that guns kill? You think I wouldn't shoot a person who threatened my life in any way? You must have a thick skull.
You can't seem to understand that this is all about words. You don't like the phrase "shoot to stop", because you think it sounds like pansy liberal talk. I don't like the phrase "shoot to kill", because that's not the kind of stuff you want to have repeated in a courtroom, when you should know how easily the prosecutor will turn that against you.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Talk about strawmen. :quirky
When did I say I would convict someone who made a mistake in a situation they never asked for? You're a different story; you've evinced a premeditated intent to kill should any criminal provoke you, regardless of how much force is actually required to stop the threat.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
lol, if we're going to get into irrelevant semantics, I could just as easily argue that something is only deadly in the event it actually causes a death. If anything, that's more accurate.
You think I don't know that guns kill? You think I wouldn't shoot a person who threatened my life in any way? You must have a thick skull.
You can't seem to understand that this is all about words. You don't like the phrase "shoot to stop", because you think it sounds like pansy liberal talk. I don't like the phrase "shoot to kill", because that's not the kind of stuff you want to have repeated in a courtroom, when you should know how easily the prosecutor will turn that against you.
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
imported post
"Cops train to shot to kill"
No, I think they train to spray to hit nowadays. :shock:
But for calling 911, don't you risk being charged with misuse of the 911 system?
If he is dead there is no emergency. If you fire a warning shot (not me though)
and they run off, also no emergency.
Why did he wait around for the police is the big question. Or did the poor
thug get scared and report him?
They are going to need a ballistics match before I will "confess" to a discharge.
And then I will still challenge the results and lack of warrent.
If it is a crime to discharge a weapon, then there is no way you can report
a self defense as you would be violating your right to not incriminate yourself.
So the judge thinks it is better to charge someone and hope to make some
money off of them than allow common sense to enter into his courtroom.
The exceptions should be used before the trail, not after the fact.
Think we found BHO's second court pick.:banghead:
"Cops train to shot to kill"
No, I think they train to spray to hit nowadays. :shock:
But for calling 911, don't you risk being charged with misuse of the 911 system?
If he is dead there is no emergency. If you fire a warning shot (not me though)
and they run off, also no emergency.
Why did he wait around for the police is the big question. Or did the poor
thug get scared and report him?
They are going to need a ballistics match before I will "confess" to a discharge.
And then I will still challenge the results and lack of warrent.
If it is a crime to discharge a weapon, then there is no way you can report
a self defense as you would be violating your right to not incriminate yourself.
So the judge thinks it is better to charge someone and hope to make some
money off of them than allow common sense to enter into his courtroom.
The exceptions should be used before the trail, not after the fact.
Think we found BHO's second court pick.:banghead:
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
SlackwareRobert wrote:
Seems to me that any LAC who fires any shot anywhere in public ought to report the event.
I would favor a law requiring that. That would be reasonable regulation, in my opinion.
Cops have to file a report when they discharge a weapon. So should non-LEO citizens.
SlackwareRobert wrote:
Seems to me that any LAC who fires any shot anywhere in public ought to report the event.
I would favor a law requiring that. That would be reasonable regulation, in my opinion.
Cops have to file a report when they discharge a weapon. So should non-LEO citizens.