View Full Version : "I fired my warning shot, like I'm supposed to by law"
Raleigh, NC man apparently was protecting his neighborhood from "hoodlums" and killed one man after he fired a warning shot with his shotgun.
He was really calm during all the 911 calls. Video in the link below has 911 audio.
http://www.wral.com/man-shot-killed-in-raleigh-home/15908975/
Raleigh, NC man apparently was protecting his neighborhood from "hoodlums" and killed one man after he fired a warning shot with his shotgun.
He was really calm during all the 911 calls. Video in the link below has 911 audio.
http://www.wral.com/man-shot-killed-in-raleigh-home/15908975/
I am from NC. I didn't know this was law. I see you are in NC. Did YOU know this was law??
I am from NC. I didn't know this was law. I see you are in NC. Did YOU know this was law??
My CCW instructor never taught that part of the law I guess...
"suspect"
Uhh, he's a homeowner who shot a trespasser who was allegedly armed. I lived in North Carolina while I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, I thought NC was more southern than this though I do remember having to get pistol permits (which I found strange for still being south of the Mason Dixon line) and being limited to 5/year.
It was actually executive action 13145 or "Biden's Buckshot" as it is known in DC.
It was actually executive action 13145 or "Biden's Buckshot" as it is known in DC.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CrzyRXSxuAg
Right, but listen to the 911 calls. He told dispatcher to send cops, as he was locked and loaded to go and protect his neighborhood.
"suspect"
Uhh, he's a homeowner who shot a trespasser who was allegedly armed. I lived in North Carolina while I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, I thought NC was more southern than this though I do remember having to get pistol permits (which I found strange for still being south of the Mason Dixon line) and being limited to 5/year.
My CCW instructor never taught that part of the law I guess...
Mine didn't either....
"I'm going to secure my neighborhood. I'm the neighborhood watch."; "We're going to secure our neighborhood." And with that, his defense argument flew away into the night. I can easily see him being hooked for 2nd degree murder, especially in Raleigh.
.....well this is unfortunate
It's joey biden's law. That should be good enough for the defense.
What was his intent? It's not to say that others who do the exact same thing won't be indicted, or found guilty in a court of law, but his intent as all that should matter.
Biden told the entire world to grab a shotgun (check) and fire a warning shot (check). Comey told the entire world that it's really the intent of the criminal that should decide on charges, or not.
Rule of law? Bah!!
Doc Safari
08-09-16, 15:26
The "warning shot" is similar to the "wounding shot." How many jury trials did I have to sit for where one of the main issues was "why didn't the homeowner shoot him in the leg instead of killing him?"
Both the "warning shot" and the "wounding shot" are part of the nonsense foisted upon us by lawmakers and regulators who have never had to face a life-or-death encounter with an armed individual.
My training says "Aim at the center of mass" and that's the only warning shot you get.
"why didn't the homeowner shoot him in the leg instead of killing him?"
I'll have to remember that. A shotgun blast to the inner thigh closer to his nutz the better. Sorry judge... I was trying to wound him... I didn't know about that big ole artery in his leg.
The_War_Wagon
08-09-16, 16:07
It was actually executive action 13145 or "Biden's Buckshot" as it is known in DC.
Yep - this! :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPzr1vzmGY
"why didn't the homeowner shoot him in the leg instead of killing him?"
I'll have to remember that. A shotgun blast to the inner thigh closer to his nutz the better. Sorry judge... I was trying to wound him... I didn't know about that big ole artery in his leg.
I tried to shoot him in the arm because I thought he had a weapon and I was going to shoot it out of his hands, but I'm a terrible shot and in the course of trying to shoot his arm I instead shot him in the upper chest three times.
I wish ammo prices weren't so high, I feel that with a little more practice I could have shot him in the arm.
Doc Safari
08-09-16, 16:11
I can't remember if it was actually part of my training or just some scuttlebutt in a seminar or something, but the irony is that if the perp survives he will probably sue you for his medical bills.
If he's dead, his family may sue, but if it's a good shoot they won't get very far. I think that's how it was told to me (us).
I'll have to try to remember who told me that. This thread is bringing back many face-palm moments from my days in law enforcemen.
I can't remember if it was actually part of my training or just some scuttlebutt in a seminar or something, but the irony is that if the perp survives he will probably sue you for his medical bills.
If he's dead, his family may sue, but if it's a good shoot they won't get very far. I think that's how it was told to me (us).
I'll have to try to remember who told me that. This thread is bringing back many face-palm moments from my days in law enforcemen.
More lies to scare rookies.
A good shoot is a good shoot.
That said, this isn't The Rifleman. People can barely shoot a man under stress, howdafunk are you going to shoot a pistol out of someone's hand? Even if you can do that moving and communicating under stress with tunnel vision; their hand, or what remains, is going to be poo-poo.
I shot the biggest part of the most immediate threat. Anything more requires arrest or and indictment. My liar can talk your liar in court.
And even IF some hippie judge awarded 100 million dollars, guess what? I don't have 100 million and never will.
Doc Safari
08-09-16, 16:25
I shot the biggest part of the most immediate threat.
Yep. I remember that. "I just followed my training, Mr. Cross-Examining Attorney. I'm trained to 'stop the action' without regard to whether the shot is fatal and I'm trained to aim for the center of mass to stop the action."
Game. Set. Match.
I can't remember if it was actually part of my training or just some scuttlebutt in a seminar or something, but the irony is that if the perp survives he will probably sue you for his medical bills.
If he's dead, his family may sue, but if it's a good shoot they won't get very far. I think that's how it was told to me (us).
I'll have to try to remember who told me that. This thread is bringing back many face-palm moments from my days in law enforcemen.
Don't get too caught up in the civil aspect of defending your person. Concern yourself with acting within the guidelines of the criminal code, case law and common sense. You should be aware of civil ramifications, but don't get so caught up in it that you get yourself killed by failing to act when the need arises.
Doc Safari
08-09-16, 16:40
Don't get too caught up in the civil aspect of defending your person. Concern yourself with acting within the guidelines of the criminal code, case law and common sense. You should be aware of civil ramifications, but don't get so caught up in it that you get yourself killed by failing to act when the need arises.
No worries, Mate. Here at the ranch we abide by the philosophy of "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up." We don't dial 911, we dial 9mm. If you come to the ranch, be advised I'll be able to see you approaching from nearly a mile away. And no, you don't have to be in my house for me to decide you're asking for it.
No worries, Mate. Here at the ranch we abide by the philosophy of "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up." We don't dial 911, we dial 9mm. If you come to the ranch, be advised I'll be able to see you approaching from nearly a mile away. And no, you don't have to be in my house for me to decide you're asking for it.
lol that's a funny joke. Quite a knee-slapper.
I know if you were accosted and involved in a shoot for real that you would notify EMS and the Sheriff's Office. You certainly would undertake reasonable and prudent action.
I know you wouldn't really zap some dude and bury him in a shallow grave like it was the 1800s because well, you're a law abiding guy.
lol that's a funny joke. Quite a knee-slapper.
I know if you were accosted and involved in a shoot for real that you would notify EMS and the Sheriff's Office. You certainly would undertake reasonable and prudent action.
I know you wouldn't really zap some dude and bury him in a shallow grave like it was the 1800s because well, you're a law abiding guy.
Me personally I'd call good old 911. They can decide if EMS or the coroner is needed! And I ain't burying shit....I HATE digging!!! 81mm and Four-Deuce mortar pits ruined that for me.
Moose-Knuckle
08-10-16, 04:28
Here in the great state of Texas one can legally use deadly force on their property after dark for criminal mischief. I think large group outside my home yelling, threatening, etc. and flashing a gun fits that.
Not sure about the law in NC but we all know this will play out in the court of public opinion via the MSM.
This will be used to further the agenda based upon race alone . . .
It's obvious the guy was a bit of a loon. The shot was made from "inside" his garage thru a window so not really seeing any real threat to his life or well being on this one. Reads to me like he put himself square in the middle of this one because he wasn't too fond of black guys racing on his street so he decided to "secure" his neighborhood rather than sit back in his house and let the police do their job. I could give two shots about him as his just another dumas with a gun making all gun owners look bad.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Here in the great state of Texas one can legally use deadly force on their property after dark for criminal mischief. I think large group outside my home yelling, threatening, etc. and flashing a gun fits that
Not sure about the law in NC but we all know this will play out in the court of public opinion via the MSM.
Reports I've read indicate that the person who was shot was curbside, around the mailbox. NC law basically reads that if someone is actively engaged in attempting to break into a home, they're fair game, armed or not. Shooting someone for trespassing and/or what might constitute criminal mischief is a no-go. Regardless, by the shooter's own admission on the 911 recording, the person who was shot wasn't an intended target.
This will be used to further the agenda based upon race alone . . .
The shooter made a point of telling the dispatcher that there were "friggin' black males" outside of his home. Having a "hate crime" charge tacked on wouldn't surprise me.
The shooter made a point of telling the dispatcher that there were "friggin' black males" outside of his home. Having a "hate crime" charge tacked on wouldn't surprise me.
I heard another 911 call on the radio that was interesting. Suspected shooter's neighbor called to tell police that he heard gun shots from suspected shooter's house, but didn't want anyone to know who was calling, due to an outstanding hate crime allegation. Sounds like the suspected shooter has a long legal battle in front of him.
kaiservontexas
08-10-16, 13:00
I would not worry about civil if the defensive action was prudent. The reason is simple, and something the professor (who was a lawyer and now judge) taught during my course at Rice. He stressed that it is important to let the client (victim of a transgression) to know that besides the criminal prosecution. The client may also take the aggressor to civil court. We were discussing rape cases in criminal law, and how during his legal practice he found that the client got more closure from the civil case versus the criminal case. OJ is a famous example of the victim taking the perp to civil court.
So if I ever find myself a victim of crime, I will file for a civil case with the courts against the criminal who attacked me. Just something to remember about criminal and civil situations.
I would not worry about civil if the defensive action was prudent.
To be clear, I wasn't writing about a civil claim over an alleged hate crime. I mean it being prosecuted as a hate crime.
I heard about this on the local news this morning. This guy is going to have a very hard time getting out of this one for sure.
If you want a warning shot bring a friend and send them in first.
I would not worry about civil if the defensive action was prudent. The reason is simple, and something the professor (who was a lawyer and now judge) taught during my course at Rice. He stressed that it is important to let the client (victim of a transgression) to know that besides the criminal prosecution. The client may also take the aggressor to civil court. We were discussing rape cases in criminal law, and how during his legal practice he found that the client got more closure from the civil case versus the criminal case. OJ is a famous example of the victim taking the perp to civil court.
So if I ever find myself a victim of crime, I will file for a civil case with the courts against the criminal who attacked me. Just something to remember about criminal and civil situations.
That, a lower standard of proof, and 3/4 jury instead of unanimous.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.