Posted on 05/31/2014 9:23:36 AM PDT by FlashBack
Should you fire a warning shot when confronted by an attacker? In some states it is legal to fire a warning shot and in others it is not. For example, California Penal Code 246.3 (negligent discharge of firearms) prohibits firing a gun in a grossly negligent manner, like a warning shot. As a felony conviction, it provides for up to 3 years in prison and a maximum of $10,000 fine. It is also a felony in New Hampshire, Tennessee, and several other states to fire a warning shot with similar penalties, if you are not justified. A friend in North Carolina actually dispelled a myth of some there, saying that it is NOT a law there that you must fire a warning shot. In North Carolina, there are 4 elements in law for a perfect self-defense that do not include firing warning shots.
(Excerpt) Read more at usacarry.com ...
The price and availability of ammo prevents me from firing a warning shot.
First things first - if you are carrying for self-defense, establish a relationship with an attorney and/or avail yourself of the services of an org like ccwsafe.com or similar. Be prepared!
When circumstances cause you to conclude, “I’ll have to shoot this guy to stop him,” then here is the philosophy that I was taught/trained to live by (if I wanted to continue living):
Start shooting and continue shooting until the threat stops doing whatever it was that made you start shooting in the first place.
Comprehend that there is no such thing as shooting someone “just a little bit”.
There is darned little positive value and a metric-ton of negative value in wasting a round — a round you may desperately need later — as a warning shot.
You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to *stop* - understand the difference.
When you meet with your attorney, you had better be able to articulate:
You fully believed that the threat was, right then and there, going to kill you (or someone else if you were intervening) and that you had to shoot to stop him.
Best of luck to you!!
I never waste ammo!
1)Shoot
2)Shovel
3)STFU
I agree, though many don't. Situational awareness is critical so you know what is needed; is there room/time for the possibility that the person need not be killed :: Is there a safe place for the shot to be spent without a ricochet or having the round go through something and hitting an unintended target :: Is it going to get you into more legal trouble than a kill shot would?
Most of the arguments I've seen against it assume that you are stupid and will inadvertently kill/harm someone else - make me wonder about their own situational awareness abilities and whether or not they are just waiting for their first chance at taking a "trophy".
Me personally, I will kill if necessary to protect me and mine, but I won't do it just because I can legally get away with it. Not only is life sacred, but I prefer to think that, if a person hasn't been saved, and I have a choice, I don't want to be the one that ensured he won't ever be saved.
"If you find yourself in the position of firing a warning shot, aim for center mass."
In short, he said he didn't believe in "warning shots" and that firing one just gave a determined perp more time to physically get at you, often resulting in one becoming a victim.
My CCW instructor is a Retired Marine and retired IL State Police officer. I take him at his word.
Or they are so stoned that they can't think.
About the only purpose I can see to warning shots, is to warn an unaware person of imminent danger, assuming they are oblivious to warning cries.
As far as giving a warning shot to a criminal, I could say that it is situational, but I would be hard pressed to imagine a situation where it would be needed.
An important factor is the civilian Tueller distance. This is why I would accompany my pistol with a knife in the other hand. I do not need to ponder any philosophical implications about using my gun if an aggressor runs headlong into my knife.
If that is not an issue, warning shots would likely be frivolous.
“Should you fire a warning shot when confronted by an attacker?”
No, no and Hell no.
The only warning shot an attacker deserves is the one that puts him down permanently.
A lot of great comments here, I read the article this a.m. and had to share.
Brevitas anima scientiae
Robber could still be charged for manslaughter or murder on the grounds that a death occurred during the committing of his crime. The robber was committing a criminal act, got shot at but while the shot was missed, another person was killed. If the robber was there to buy records only, then no shot would have occurred and no one would have been killed.
Could be......
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.