AZ - Daughter's ex-boyfriend shot by father during assault. (Video)

**Bowser** · 03-18-10, 18:28

Originally Posted by irishluck73

Yours doesn't have a second level?

It is possible he opted for the double wide model.

**jaydoc1** · 03-18-10, 19:40

Originally Posted by The_Katar

You don't shoot to kill an assailant either. You shoot to stop them in the most efficient manner. This may kill them; it may not.

For my information, what other manner, once you've decided that the use of deadlyforce is necessary, would be appropriate and efficient use of your firearm?

If you "pull a gun" it would be great if the threat ran away screaming. This equals a win.

No question. Not really the case here, though. Warning shot+pistol whipping (seriously?)+gunshot to leg=assailant still attacking. Not a win by a longshot. Then he shot him in the groin. Think there's a civil suit coming there? Most assuredly not a win.

Warning shots? I generally don't think that they're a good idea, but I know guys that have employed them and resolved the situation without killing someone. I am not endorsing them but I am not going to completely write them off either. It's easy to say you should "never" do this or "always" do that.

While it might be easy to say "never" or "always" that is certainly not what I'm doing here. A warning shot is a danger to other persons unless you've just shot it into the ground at your feet. A stray shot, while maybe scaring off the attacker, may also be landing in an innocent bystander. So yes, I guess in this case I am saying "never". If I've had to present a firearm in defense of myself or another person then endangering others by firing a warning shot would be verboten in all cases. If I'm going to pull the trigger it's going to be (ideally) with the gun aimed at the assailant. If lethal force isn't warranted then the gun should never have come into play in the first place.

There are (at least here in Colorado) strict rules under which a firearm may be used in defense of yourself or others so there are legal absolutes whether you agree with them or not. A warning shot isn't legal.

This is why I "almost never" answer these armchair quarterback threads, because I think you and I are probably on exactly the same page about this stuff but since we're limited to communicatin in sound bites differences of opinion often appear when none exist.

**ZDL** · 03-18-10, 20:12

*******

**Spiffums** · 03-18-10, 20:23

Originally Posted by mnoe82

2 story trailers?

They have them. It;s more like a big attic but you could have a bedroom in one.

**Jay Cunningham** · 03-18-10, 22:36

Originally Posted by jaydoc1

This is why I "almost never" answer these armchair quarterback threads, because I think you and I are probably on exactly the same page about this stuff but since we're limited to communicatin in sound bites differences of opinion often appear when none exist.

Probably true.

**11Bravo** · 03-18-10, 22:45

I'm guessing that he fired a the first "warning" shot to avoid hitting his daughter.
And it just says he hit the douche bag in the leg and groin, it doesn't say he aimed at them.

**Alpha Sierra** · 03-19-10, 05:51

If he had the chance to walk right up to pistol whip him he had the chance to put a hole in his temple.

You hurt my child and hell will rain down on you.

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 03-19-10, 17:56

Originally Posted by Alpha Sierra

You hurt my child and hell will rain down on you.

If not from me, from my brothers....

On the 2nd story, I just saw that he jumped out the window...

On warning shots, the only time I see warning shots being effective is in a civil unrest situation where the rioters don't realize that things have gotten serious. One or more rounds may not make a difference in the end, but one bang may focus peoples attention quickly. I don't see them effective in a direct action role.