Posted on 02/01/2020 7:57:24 PM PST by PROCON
If youve never seen the Sergio Leone film The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, one of the characters admonishes a would-be assassin When you have to shoot, shoot; dont talk after having dispatched him. Something like that exact sentiment is why warning shots, verbal warnings and other attempts to dissuade a violent attacker are a bad idea.
If the threat is real, draw from your concealed carry holster and fire and stop the threat.
Warning Shots Will Only Land You In Jail
Warning shots sound great on paper. The gunshot will frighten the bad person enough so they give up or think better of what theyre doing and cheese it. Sounds good, right?
Its likely to send you to jail instead.
There are two primary factors that will put you in a prison uni because of a warning shot. First is that a prosecutor will argue that since you werent threatened enough to actually shoot the person in the first place, you werent really threatened sufficiently to merit pulling a gun in the first place.
The act of drawing a pistol in the first place is an act of deadly force before the eyes of the law. Use of deadly force without the requisite reasonable belief of imminent death or dismemberment is a felony.
Second is what the bullet does after it leaves the barrel, which is part and parcel to why police officers dont fire warning shots. If the threat is real, they tend to shoot to stop the threat and thats exactly what you should do if confronted by a violent criminal.
Granted, a bullet into dirt will likely stay there, but pavement and other materials can cause a ricochet. Firing up into the air is equally reckless; what goes up, after all.
It Might Just Get You Killed
A recent tragic reminder about why warnings and warning shots are often fruitless is the recent case of Pedro Pete Cain of Norfolk, Va. Cain was visiting with some neighbors when a young woman came up to the group and asked to use a cellular phone on in late May of this year, according to the Virginia Pilot. She was told there wasnt one available, but Cain was concerned that she was actually casing for a robbery and went back to his apartment to retrieve a handgun.
Cains suspicion was correct, and soon after returning with the gun, a man wearing a bandana appeared with a handgun. Cain aimed at the man and told him to drop it.
The man began to comply, but suddenly fired, hitting Cain in the abdomen. Cain was taken to the hospital but died of his wounds. Five people have been arrested for their roles in the robbery. The alleged shooter, one David Barrington, is facing a charge of 2nd degree murder as well as ancillary charges.
This isnt to say its Cains own fault he was killed; it was the murderous criminals fault. However, it may well have turned out different had Cain merely fired. The shooter may have wound up on a slab, Cains fiance wouldnt be mourning his loss and his son wont be growing up without remembering his father.
Shoot To Stop The Threat
If you are confronted with a real and honest threat to you or someone elses life or posed with a threat of serious bodily injury by a person bent on doing evil, shoot to stop the threat. Dont try trick shots to the kneecap, dont resort to warning shots. Verbal commands may work, but as can be gleaned from the Cain case, wont always.
It certainly isnt the case that you should shoot first and ask questions later. The threat has to be real and reasonable. But it is the case that if presented with a real clear and present danger, shoot until they stop.
If the danger is real, drawing and shooting will be justified. Since the best place for bullets is inside an attacker, theres no danger of ricochets or bullets landing somewhere they shouldnt after being fired in the air. Best of all, youll probably get home alive.
You are the assailant.
You are on a army base.
You break into a two story family unit.
You are going through the downstairs rooms.
You head for the steps
Suddenly, you hear the unmistakable sound of someone jacking a shell into a shotgun.
Do you proceed?
Grant’s mistake at Cold Harbor would be a good anology
And yours is probably the majority of “gun stories”, as opposed to “he killed him”.
And in your case, you got off completely scott free. Not even any police or court case at all.
Good on you.
Yup.
Pretty much.
You assume the assailant is moral, rational, and unimpaired by substances.
You know what happens when you assume?
Don't assume. Like a previous poster said, the lock on the door/window was the first and LAST warning.
Yes. Warning shots should be considered in a very few limited conditions and not in place of neutralizing an immediate threat to your safety.
You assume the perp can just shoot the victim.
Not true.
The perp has to advance up some steps knowing there is a loaded shotgun waiting.
If they are on drugs they still are at a disadvantage.
Pickett’s Charge comes to mind
Glad you made it through that ordeal okay. Stay armed and alert. I was prepared to kill but him seeing the weapon stopped him.
My Dad has a building his business is located in that has storage on the second and third floors, is posted on steps no trespassing and in the last two years he has had to pull his pistol on two homeless who tried to sneak in the back entrance. The security system alerted him and he caught them at gun point. One claimed he was visiting a friends apartment which didnt exist and the other was like oh sh@t dont kill me. He caught them before they stole anything and essentially told them as he escorted them out, I catch you again and you wont walk out, do you understand, yes, yes and both took off. He caught another and took off up the steps and chased him out the front step entrance. He didnt have time to steal anything and the cops watched the video and knew him and trespassed him and were like, defend yourself if you catch one. Dad has started locking the back entrance. I figure he will eventually end up killing one of them
No. 1) There's an "O Sh!T moment when the bad guy enters darkened house and trips one of them.
No. 2) As mentioned elsewhere, a backlighted bad guy is easier to hit.
This is entirely situationally dependent. A guy with a knife threatening the gas station clerk over the counter? He doesn;t have a good position to immediate cause lethal harm. No need to shoot unless he does something or has a buddy. Same with a bum moving towards you on the dark street. You don’t know his intentions, he may just want change. Show your pistol, and he’ll go away. No need to shoot him either.
Sure, if the perp has a firearm and you have a clear shot, or if he’s already harmed people, giving a warning is stupid. Blast the dude. But if the situation doesn’t warrant it, or you have sufficient advantage (cover/concealment, no easy immediate other people for him to attack), immediately shooting is probably not the best idea.
I was trained as a tank gunner at Fort Knox in 1966. They spent about as much on a four-man tank crew in our two months as they did on a fighter pilot, which was considerable.
They never trained us to fire warning shots at enemy tanks, though I suppose it could come up in border disputes and the like. But I never got in the habit.
They did teach us, sometimes, to make a second *certainty* shot. But that was at an enemy tank or vehicle target, not at an individual.
We just ran over those. Still seems like an appropriate tactic to me. Still carry an Army M1911A1 .45 in a GI tanker's shoulder holster, too. Old habits.
If I know the threat, I dont warn. I will announce that I am armed, and they have one chance to ID themselves if I dont.
1st photo, guy with shotgun shoots through the corner of sheet rock, end of discussion.
i read In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob over thirty years ago... if it comes out, it damn well better bite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.