View Full Version : So you shoot to scare a burglar
white spaniard
12-17-08, 13:15
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5097917
Two would-be burglars encountered an armed homeowner in Ogden. Now one man is in jail and police are looking for another. It happened this morning around 9:15 at Steven Cross' home near 200 East 19th Street.
The homeowner said someone tried to break into his house a month ago and, this time, he was ready. Cross said, "I just got done making myself some pancakes after work when I heard someone trying to break in my back door."
Inside the house, Cross could see a shadow through the weather strip. He said, "I wanted to scare him off, so I went down and pushed the door shut so he know someone was there, and he didn't care."
Cross tried to get a better look at the man and peeked out a side window. "I saw footprints, and it was all snow this morning," Cross said. "There were no footprints, and I'm like, ‘There's footprints. I know someone's back there.'"
Cross made eye contact with the man and that made him nervous. He said, "[He] stared me down like it was no big deal, so I went and got my gun."
Cross opened his front door, his 9 mm handgun hidden behind the door. Cross said, "He was already at his car, ready to leave, and I was like, ‘Can I help you?' Like, ‘What are you doing at my house,' basically. I don't know if he got nervous or whatever, and he fired a shot at me."
The bullet went over the house. Cross fired back, hitting the man's car as he drove off. "My tactic was just natural reaction, fire back to try to scare him, to get him out of the area, Cross said.
When Cross gave police a description, officers immediately recognized the man as Michael Shawn Toles. Police arrested Toles last week for wandering in the backyard of homes in Ogden's east bench.
Toles also was out on bail for auto theft in Weber County.
This morning, police found Toles at his house. Lt. Scott Sangberg, with the Ogden Police Department, said, "He probably ought to take up another way of living because he's not a very good criminal."
Cross, who's in the Air Force, moved into this house with his fiancée three months ago. There's an alarm system, but someone tried to break in last month, so he bought the gun. Cross said, "Never had to use it before. First shot fired at a Dodge Intrepid. [I] didn't really expect that."
Toles is in the Weber County Jail. Cross says a second man was parked in another car outside his house, possibly as a lookout. Police are still looking for him.
Police are investigating whether the homeowner was within his rights to shoot at the suspects. Sangberg said a person had a right to defend himself, but legally he or she didn't have a right to chase someone down a street while shooting.
Im not shooting to 'scare' anyone, Im gonna shoot AT the mofo breaking in with intent to stop his threat to me and my family.
I dont do 'warning shots'
30 cal slut
12-17-08, 14:28
there are no "warning shots," just stray bullets.
SeriousStudent
12-17-08, 16:53
Something I heard a long time ago:
"The two shots to the chest were the warning. The one to the head was for real."
I might have even read it here.
Well, I don't want to armchair QB this one, so I'll say what I would do. I would have never opened the door. I would have put my family into one room, called the cops, and waited for them. If he tried to gain entry again, then I would have confronted him and shot him as he was trying to enter my home.
To all the Rambo's here: There is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, "warning" or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option. I have first hand experience with this one. Had I killed the night I had to make the split second decision, I would likely still be in Trenton State.
SeriousStudent
12-17-08, 21:43
My comments were not meant to convey a Rambo attitude. They were meant to convey that you fire to stop a threat.
For me it boils down to the four rules. I would be very concerned about where that warning shot went. As others here have said, every round that leaves your muzzle has a lawyer attached to it, with a potential million-dollar price tag.
But the lives of my son and daughter are worth more than a million to me. So I will evaluate that situation, and do what is appropriate. And when I fire, I use the appropriate amount of force to gain control of the situation.
Safetyhit, I am very glad that you are not in that facility. I do understand the pressure of the decision you had to make. My remark sounds more flippant than I meant it to.
I believe we are on the same side.
T
there is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, "warning" or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option.
I may be opening a can of worms here, but I beg to differ. Using a firearm in any capacity against someone means that you have decided use of lethal force is your only recourse. Your point of aim in this case should be either center mass or a CNS shot and if the subject dies as a result too bad - you were shooting to stop an immediate threat, not with a pre-meditation to "kill". I think that that concept of shooting to wound sets dangerous precedents on a number of levels.
T
I may be opening a can of worms here, but I beg to differ. Using a firearm in any capacity against someone means that you have decided use of lethal force is your only recourse.
No, it means (in my humble case) that you have fired warning shots to effectively scare the shit out of three people who accosted your car while driving home from a first date at the movies and who were ready to hurt you and another innocent on your property with a bat, knife and slim-jim, when instead you could have run in your home and called the police.
Here in N.J. one can not shoot anyone outside their home unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. The police said I had the option to run inside, lock the doors, and call them. I chose not to do so.
They deserved what they got. My record has long been expunged.
T
I may be opening a can of worms here, but I beg to differ. Using a firearm in any capacity against someone means that you have decided use of lethal force is your only recourse. Your point of aim in this case should be either center mass or a CNS shot and if the subject dies as a result too bad - you were shooting to stop an immediate threat, not with a pre-meditation to "kill". I think that that concept of shooting to wound sets dangerous precedents on a number of levels.
I agree whole heartedly.
This subject has many options of end results. I live in the city and discharging a firearm gets you in jail as much as shooting someone, but shooting at someone fleeing the scene is a big "NO" threat bad shot. The law here as I understand it is only if a life is in jepardy and enough force to overcome the threat. IE: don't kill flies with a sledge hammer. I agree a warning shot can be idea and possibly stop the threat but then becomes the law of discharging in city limits.
I don't have a CCW even though it is available but I personally know if I branish a pistol I will use it. And that scares me because I may save a life or maybe not but I will have to answer for it and now a days even pay for it and risk my family life style. If someone broke in my house yes they won't do it again. But it will change me and my family forever.
I support CCW and self defense but will do everything I can to avoid needing either option
Well, I don't want to armchair QB this one, so I'll say what I would do. I would have never opened the door.
I agree, and this is a big one with regard to mistakes--both that lead to home invasions when people open the door for strangers and become victims of home invasions, as well as shootings when home defenders arm themselves and then open the door to confront a potential threat.
This is both a tactical and a legal dilema.
First, in most circumstances, it is a bad tactical move to open the door to confront someone who you believe to be armed, even if you are armed yourself.
And if you do wind up shooting someone it may hurt your legal case when you left the safety of a locked house to confront someone. I mean, exactly how afraid were you and how anxious to avoid shooting someone if you left the relative safety of a locked house to face a potential armed assailant? Again, it depends on the laws of your locale and the the specific circumstances.
you have fired warning shots to effectively scare the shit out of three people
I'm sorry, but again if you open fire it is not to scare someone it's to kill them
Here in N.J. one can not shoot anyone outside their home unless it is deemed absolutely necessary.
So they were okay with you discharging a firearm under these circumstances but would have thrown the book at you if anyone had been injured? (that was a question not a commentary)
It sounds to me from what you are saying that you would have been perfectly justified in shooting these individuals - as you describe it they presented and immediate threat to life and limb.
And discharging a firearm can lead to charges of reckless endangerment among others. In my Arizona CCW class we were told that under the law if you discharge a firearm (even a negligent discharge) within city limits it is a FELONY and you will lose your CCW among other things. Personally I am only discharging my weapon when I am in fear of death or great bodily injury to myself or family and I will articulate as much when time comes.
To all the Rambo's here: There is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, "warning" or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option. I have first hand experience with this one. Had I killed the night I had to make the split second decision, I would likely still be in Trenton State.
Army Chief
12-18-08, 03:59
I realize that there are differing schools of thought on this issue (a glaring understatement), but I have a hard time with the idea of firing a projectile for any reason other than to engage a legitimate target.
Warning shots are, by nature, risky at best and reckless at worst. You have to ask yourself what's worse: firing into a threat without a formal preamble, or firing a warning shot that may well result in unintended damage/injury or worse to someone that isn't even involved in the confrontation.
There are places on this earth where warning shots are required by law whenever possible (and Germany happens to be one of them), but I still chafe at the suggestion that it is worth taking these kinds of chances in order to gain compliance from anyone posing a deadly threat. If you're justified in pointing a weapon at someone to begin with, the odds are that you've already cleared the moral and ethical burdens required to ventilate them as well.
My policy? Mercy, when/if possible, but no warning shots.
Chief
Chief,
YOu are right. When I was a C.O the policy on escaping prisoners dictated that warning shots were not authorized nor should they be. I do find it rather funny that in Germany one must fire warning shots at prisoners before escalating force. If I recall correctly the police were sometimes required to use them as well.
If I discharge my weapon, i.e. shoot someone it is because there was a perceived or direct threat that required the use of deadly force otherwise it is not going to happen.
I realize that there are differing schools of thought on this issue (a glaring understatement), but I have a hard time with the idea of firing a projectile for any reason other than to engage a legitimate target.
Warning shots are, by nature, risky at best and reckless at worst. You have to ask yourself what's worse: firing into a threat without a formal preamble, or firing a warning shot that may well result in unintended damage/injury or worse to someone that isn't even involved in the confrontation.
There are places on this earth where warning shots are required by law whenever possible (and Germany happens to be one of them), but I still chafe at the suggestion that it is worth taking these kinds of chances in order to gain compliance from anyone posing a deadly threat. If you're justified in pointing a weapon at someone to begin with, the odds are that you've already cleared the moral and ethical burdens required to ventilate them as well.
My policy? Mercy, when/if possible, but no warning shots.
Chief
Army Chief
12-18-08, 04:47
Chief,
YOu are right. When I was a C.O the policy on escaping prisoners dictated that warning shots were not authorized nor should they be. I do find it rather funny that in Germany one must fire warning shots at prisoners before escalating force. If I recall correctly the police were sometimes required to use them as well.
If I discharge my weapon, i.e. shoot someone it is because there was a perceived or direct threat that required the use of deadly force otherwise it is not going to happen.
IG,
I should have been clearer in my statement: the policy to which I was referring in Germany was primarily applicable to individual self-defense situations (i.e. a hunter faced with a beligerent poacher in the forest, et al). The individual's ability to own and employ arms in most of the EU is extant, but obviously heavily restricted.
One of my better friends is a fairly high-ranking Polizei officer, and inasmuch as I can tell, they can still empty an MP-5 in your personal space without any advance fanfare, provided they can think of some reason for it after-the-fact. Granted, our litigous ways are starting to migrate to the Continent somewhat, but for the most part, you still don't want to get froggy with the German police. ;)
Chief
Chief,
I had heard about the police being restricted but it was second hand. The escape thing was something I learned when we did a little ride around with the BGS up near Bad Herzfeld/ Fulda area back in the day.
I remember the Polizei being well-known back in the day for kicking in peoples heads. As one of our guys found out when he was in the Frankfurt Bahnhof drunk and messing around with some older German guy. :eek:
IG,
I should have been clearer in my statement: the policy to which I was referring in Germany was primarily applicable to individual self-defense situations (i.e. a hunter faced with a beligerent poacher in the forest, et al). The individual's ability to own and employ arms in most of the EU is extant, but obviously heavily restricted.
One of my better friends is a fairly high-ranking Polizei officer, and inasmuch as I can tell, they can still empty an MP-5 in your personal space without any advance fanfare, provided they can think of some reason for it after-the-fact. Granted, our litigous ways are starting to migrate to the Continent somewhat, but for the most part, you still don't want to get froggy with the German police. ;)
Chief
Personally I am only discharging my weapon when I am in fear of death or great bodily injury to myself or family and I will articulate as much when time comes.
That's what I was taught, too. If the gun clears the holster, be prepared to shoot - and only present a weapon when you're in fear if death or grievious bodily injury. If you're not sure, then you're probably NOT about to die.
Others may be taught differently.
have to agree that from my perspective, a warning shot is a dangerous response.
in my CCW class and in talking with LEO's, for the average person (civilian), if the firearm has been drawn or shouldered, you are past the point of negotiating, warning, or backing away; all your options have been exhausted and you at the last step in a defensive/protective situation. This is drastically different then what LEO's are trained for, and their response patterns shouldn't be considered when evaluating a home defensive/protective situation that a civilian might encounter.
There are many "fine points" that can come into play and I remember when my wife went through the training, the instructor answered a question "What if the attacker suddenly turns and runs"?? His response......if they are inside the house, you shoot until your firearm is empty, throw the gun, get the kids, and run. He explained his answer by saying if a person was crazy/desperate enough to break into house, you can't count on them being logical or consistent. The attacker could take 2 steps, jump through a doorway and turn to fire at you, or try to find a child's room, or countless other responses.
CarlosDJackal
12-18-08, 08:25
It is specifically against policy for us to fire any warning shots. We are accountable for every bullet that leaves the muzzle of whichever firearm we are using.
The guys should have just said that he returned fire when the perp took a shot at him and left it at that.
Lesson learned: Watch what you say to the Police and to reporters because it can and will be used against you in a court of law!!
30 cal slut
12-18-08, 08:38
Warning shots are, by nature, risky at best and reckless at worst.
And ... warning shots can be interpreted by bad guys as your unwillingness to use deadly force.
If you're justified in pointing a weapon at someone to begin with, the odds are that you've already cleared the moral and ethical burdens required to ventilate them as well.
Precisely.
Some here persist with this myth that "if you pull it, you better use it to kill". Well I did use mine, a mini-14 left in the garage at the time. I just did not use it to kill. Both because I did not have to, and because I knew the law before hand. I deliberately fired 9 rounds into the air to get them back in their car and the **** off my property. Little did I know the driver's father was in the state police let alone that the audacious punk would go and call the police on me. But the idiots forgot to get rid of all their weapons when the police arrived to check their car for bullet holes...
I was not prepared to go to prison for decades, nor was I willing to run inside and hide in the face of such an unprovoked threat. I made a decision that nearly put me behind bars, but it may also have saved two lives.
You just can't throw a blanket on this one. IMHO, of course.
Some here persist with this myth that "if you pull it, you better use it to kill". Well I did use mine, a mini-14 left in the garage at the time. I just did not use it to kill. Both because I did not have to, and because I knew the law before hand. I deliberately fired 9 rounds into the air to get them back in their car and the **** off my property. Little did I know the driver's father was in the state police let alone that the audacious punk would go and call the police on me. But the idiots forgot to get rid of all their weapons when the police arrived to check their car for bullet holes...
I was not prepared to go to prison for decades, nor was I willing to run inside and hide in the face of such an unprovoked threat. I made a decision that nearly put me behind bars, but it may also have saved two lives.
You just can't throw a blanket on this one. IMHO, of course.
NJ law has set people up to fail in self defense situations. While it is true that you can not blanket all scenarios with one mantra like "No warning shots should ever be fired."
In places that allow their citizens to defend themselves, without such BS as "duty to retreat clauses", if you were justified in firing a warning shot, you were probably justified in deadly force, period.
In my opinion, NJ law creates second guessing, like it's done to you. If I need to draw my weapon: I feel my life, or the life of an innocent person, is in immediate danger. There will be no "warning shots".
Some here persist with this myth that "if you pull it, you better use it to kill".
I think there is a difference between what you are saying here, and what most other people are saying. No one is saying that you have to kill when you draw your gun, they are saying that when you shoot, you shoot to end the threat, not to scare. I do agree though that the Law in your state might dictate your actions.
I hope I never have to pull my gun anywhere but the range. But If I draw my gun, I am ready to shoot it at a person to end the threat. If I pull my trigger, I intend to hit the person causing the threat.
Some here persist with this myth that "if you pull it, you better use it to kill". Well I did use mine, a mini-14 left in the garage at the time. I just did not use it to kill. Both because I did not have to, and because I knew the law before hand. I deliberately fired 9 rounds into the air to get them back in their car and the **** off my property. Little did I know the driver's father was in the state police let alone that the audacious punk would go and call the police on me. But the idiots forgot to get rid of all their weapons when the police arrived to check their car for bullet holes...
I was not prepared to go to prison for decades, nor was I willing to run inside and hide in the face of such an unprovoked threat. I made a decision that nearly put me behind bars, but it may also have saved two lives.
You just can't throw a blanket on this one. IMHO, of course.
Glad you didn't have to go away for protecting yourself.
Glad you didn't have to go away for protecting yourself.
Thanks, pal. By the time I went in front of the judge I faced one year, with my most two serious charges having been dropped. He suspended my sentence, gave me one year probation, and 180 hrs of community service. It took 10 months to get to sentencing, and I can tell you it was a long 10 months indeed.
To those who disagree with me, or just with warning shots in general, all I can say is that this is something one may need to experience first hand in all aspects to be fully qualified to judge. If I did anything like what that guy in Texas did to the two trespassers, here in N.J. I be way gone now. The police and prosecutors stated repeatedly that if I had time to get the gun in the garage and get back down the driveway, I had time to run inside and call the police. And they were right.
In Michigan, you have to exhaust all possible options before a shooting option becomes "acceptible" or defensible. There are contingencies related to the "deadliness" of the threat presented to you. For a woman (not to sound sexist), that thresh-hold is much lower as compared to a man (age, physical restrictions, ect, not withstanding), and a woman will have a better chance of defending a shooting incident, as compared to a man.
More then anything, we are seeing the wide variances between states and the different policies that apply to defending yourself, your family, and your home. If you can avoid a shooting, do so. If your life is threated, then act to reduce or eliminate the threat. And accept the fact that in today's society, any incident involving a firearm will attract alot of attention. Right along with that, if there is a shooting situation, it's better if there is only 1 side of the story to be told......yours.
...here in N.J....
#1 problem with the entire rationale you've presented. NJ is downright backwards in regards to personal defense, property defense, etc...
I think what the old guy did to those two perps in Texas was great. There should be an instantaneous consequence for thuggery. If you want to be a thug, might want to do it in DC, NYC, Chicago, SF, LA, etc. Do it in Texas and you might end up dead for a possible $300 TV heist.
Many of the targets in those inner cities are unarmed and unwilling to defend themselves.
"Duty to retreat" is the highest order of BS known to state law.
#1 problem with the entire rationale you've presented. NJ is downright backwards in regards to personal defense, property defense, etc...
Of course it is. I certainly don't advocate the laws here, in fact I detest them. But I sure better obey them, as I saw firsthand and see all the time on the news.
One's personal views are irrelevant.
Some here persist with this myth that "if you pull it, you better use it to kill". Well I did use mine, a mini-14 left in the garage at the time. I just did not use it to kill. Both because I did not have to, and because I knew the law before hand. I deliberately fired 9 rounds into the air to get them back in their car and the **** off my property. Little did I know the driver's father was in the state police let alone that the audacious punk would go and call the police on me. But the idiots forgot to get rid of all their weapons when the police arrived to check their car for bullet holes...
I was not prepared to go to prison for decades, nor was I willing to run inside and hide in the face of such an unprovoked threat. I made a decision that nearly put me behind bars, but it may also have saved two lives.
and
Thanks, pal. By the time I went in front of the judge I faced one year, with my most two serious charges having been dropped. He suspended my sentence, gave me one year probation, and 180 hrs of community service. It took 10 months to get to sentencing, and I can tell you it was a long 10 months indeed.
First, I was not there and do not know what happened. From your description, It sounds like you fired warning shots rather than retreating into your house and suffered legal consequences.
citizensoldier16
12-18-08, 18:26
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5097917
Police are investigating whether the homeowner was within his rights to shoot at the suspects. Sangberg said a person had a right to defend himself, but legally he or she didn't have a right to chase someone down a street while shooting.
This is very interesting to me; especially the last sentence. As I read the article, I gathered that Cross fired ONE shot AFTER he himself was fired upon. This doesn't sound like "chas[ing] someone down a street while shooting." as the article presents. But, then again, what do we expect from the media?
First, I was not there and do not know what happened. From your description, It sounds like you fired warning shots rather than retreating into your house and suffered legal consequences.
That is exactly correct. I figured the warning shots were best because I was out of my home, and I really never expected folks who's head I had just fired over, instead of into, while they all brandished weapons on my driveway, to go to the police when minutes before they were 3 hard asses looking for a fight. Also figured they would have been men enough to just take their licks and move on.
Sounds to me like he was attacked and returned fire to eliminate the threat. In this case the threat fled, which ended the situation, threat eliminated. I think if the guy had better choice of words the police wouldnt be investigating the legality of his shoot. Shooting to scare someone, even a criminal, could be construed as terroristic threatening.
Alpha Sierra
12-18-08, 21:08
No, it means (in my humble case) that you have fired warning shots to effectively scare the shit out of three people who accosted your car while driving home from a first date at the movies and who were ready to hurt you and another innocent on your property with a bat, knife and slim-jim, when instead you could have run in your home and called the police.
Here in N.J. one can not shoot anyone outside their home unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. The police said I had the option to run inside, lock the doors, and call them. I chose not to do so.
They deserved what they got. My record has long been expunged.
Good thing most states do not use the "Garden" state as an example of what to do about self-defense laws.
CarlosDJackal
12-19-08, 00:39
That is exactly correct. I figured the warning shots were best because I was out of my home, and I really never expected folks who's head I had just fired over, instead of into, while they all brandished weapons on my driveway, to go to the police when minutes before they were 3 hard asses looking for a fight. Also figured they would have been men enough to just take their licks and move on.
This is unfortunately, a common misconception. Just because they're scumbags; it doesn't mean that they would never run crying to the authorities to drop the dime on the other guy if given half the chance.
A friend of mine had to pull his legally concealed handgun on a couple of would-be muggers who were either drunk or high. One wanted to keep coming and stab my friend but was held back an finally convinced to leave. What does my friend, the would-be victim do? Nothing!! I told him he was lucky that these idiots did not file a complaint against him brandishing his firearm. It would have been easy for the two of them to swear that they were not doing anything wrong when he decided to show off his handgun.
For goodness sake, cover your ass and file a complaint when you're involved in such a situation.
This is unfortunately, a common misconception. Just because they're scumbags; it doesn't mean that they would never run crying to the authorities to drop the dime on the other guy if given half the chance.
..........(snip)..................
For goodness sake, cover your ass and file a complaint when you're involved in such a situation.
Call first! Do not let the other guy make his call to dispatch before you do. Many stories of the aggressor making the first call because they are worried that you will call them in.
This has been always been true.
Biblical support: Proverbs 18:17
"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."
Buckaroo
This was also covered during my recent Arizona CCW Course. You should ALWAYS report and incident like this immediately because in some cases he he makes the report first will be the one who APPEARS to have been the victim. I think he even relayed a story of a client that was involved in a situation. IIRC, this person was involved in a situation while driving. He went home and didn't report the incident. The alleged aggressor did and then the police showed about 1 hour later. Needless to say it was a costly error for him.
This is unfortunately, a common misconception. Just because they're scumbags; it doesn't mean that they would never run crying to the authorities to drop the dime on the other guy if given half the chance.
A friend of mine had to pull his legally concealed handgun on a couple of would-be muggers who were either drunk or high. One wanted to keep coming and stab my friend but was held back an finally convinced to leave. What does my friend, the would-be victim do? Nothing!! I told him he was lucky that these idiots did not file a complaint against him brandishing his firearm. It would have been easy for the two of them to swear that they were not doing anything wrong when he decided to show off his handgun.
For goodness sake, cover your ass and file a complaint when you're involved in such a situation.
Ridge_Runner_5
12-19-08, 03:09
To all the Rambo's here: There is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, "warning" or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option. I have first hand experience with this one. Had I killed the night I had to make the split second decision, I would likely still be in Trenton State.
F that noise. The guy kicking down my door sure as hell wasnt going to give me a warning. I'm not firing into the floor or the ceiling...the only damage done to my house will be how the guy broke in and the stain on my carpet...
22_Shooter
12-19-08, 05:45
I've never been in this type of situation (and hope I never am), but I have the mindset that was stated earlier: Shoot to stop the threat, and whatever happens to the guy who decided to break into my house is up to a higher power. With this mindset, you're not actively "shooting to kill" or "shooting to maim", you're simply shooting to stop a direct threat.
To all the Rambo's here: There is absolutely no doubt that, in certain situations, "warning" or non-fatal shots are by far the better and more intelligent option. I have first hand experience with this one. Had I killed the night I had to make the split second decision, I would likely still be in Trenton State.
Oops, just noticed this one when someone else quoted the passage.
A few comments:
1. First, I think it pulls down the conversation to refer to anyone as "rambos."
2. Warning or non-fatal shots? If you are not justified in using deadly force to stop someone you are not justified in shooting them at all. Shooting to wound is a very bad tactic. You might miss them entirely or you might injure or even kill someone who you were not legally justified shooting. Or you might fail to stop a lethal threat that goes on to inflict damage to you because your shots either missed or did not incapacitate them because you were trying to shoot to wound.
3. Considering how things shook out, with you facing the judge, you are lucky that you did not do time. The object of the defensive use of a firearm is to defend yourself against dangerous people. Your actions could have landed you in an institution filled with the type of people you were defending yourself again.
4. From your description of the situation, it sounds like you could have safely retreated into your house and locked the doors. While firing the shots drove the attackers away, it also resulted in you getting into legal trouble, that could have resulted in prison.
How much did it cost you in legal bills?
Did you get your gun confiscated?
Did they confiscate all of your guns?
Did they revoke your NJ firearms ownercard?
Did the aftermath leave you unarmed to defned yourself against any future lethal situations?
As Oliver Wendle Holmes once wrote, "Detached reflection is not expected in the face of an upturned knife." However, from reading your account it sounds like you could have safely retreated and probably would have been wiser to do so without firing warning shots.
I'm sure it was a frightening, nervewracking experience--both the confrontation and the legal aftermath. I realize you may have made a split second decision based on what you thought was best at the time. But from your description, I am not sure it was the best course of action.
I support CCW and self defense but will do everything I can to avoid needing either option
Many do just that, but sometimes that just does not work. That is why one carries a pistol, for the things that they don't expect. Because If you expected something you bring a rifle or call the cops, or simply don't go
F that noise. The guy kicking down my door sure as hell wasnt going to give me a warning. I'm not firing into the floor or the ceiling...the only damage done to my house will be how the guy broke in and the stain on my carpet...
That's great. But since you chose to quote me, maybe you can tell me what this has to do with my scenario?
Warning or non-fatal shots? If you are not justified in using deadly force to stop someone you are not justified in shooting them at all. Shooting to wound is a very bad tactic. You might miss them entirely or you might injure or even kill someone who you were not legally justified shooting. Or you might fail to stop a lethal threat that goes on to inflict damage to you because your shots either missed or did not incapacitate them because you were trying to shoot to wound.
I think that just about says it all.
I think that just about says it all.
Really? How so?
I didn't shoot to wound, and I didn't give someone a free pass who broke into my home. None of these points have anything whatsoever to do with my situation.
Some people just want to see something their way and find fault regardless of presented facts, I suppose.
I fired into the air to disperse a threat from multiple armed individuals. I can assure you that if I thought there would be no consequence to my actions, all three of them would be dead and I would sleep well at night. Period. However, under the circumstances, that would have been a long-term ticket to prison which would have ruined my life and much of my future with my yet to be born son. Unacceptable.
Today, 19 years later, I have no record and am respected in the community. Most importantly, I am here for my 5 year old son.
The suggestion that warning shots can never be justified is absolutely ludicrous and short-sighted. If you haven't walked in my shoes, your opinion is semi-qualified at best to judge my actions or similar ones by any individual in such a tight spot.
Army Chief
12-19-08, 10:53
With respect to all, is there really anywhere left for this to go but down? We started with a question, expressed our varied opinions, and ended up examining a not-so-hypothetical scenario that, while instructive, seems destined to divide us. I'd prefer not to sit in the seat of judgment on this one, and I'm just not certain that there is very much more to say before debate gives way to discord.
Chief
,if someone broke into my home I would shoot to STOP the threat .one they are breaking in to steal ,rape ,kill I have no ideal .My state has the castle law so I would be protecting my family and home. .I Knew a Part time sheriff thats dad's store was being robbed he shot the perp in the leg .and the bastard sued They spent lots of cash for lawyers .the guy didn't win But all his sheriff buddies told him"WTF"you should have sent him to hell where he belongs
CarlosDJackal
12-19-08, 11:24
Warpig, you might want to look up the legal term: "DISCOVERABLE" and change your post accordingly.
I am a huge supporter of SHOOTING TO STOP an aggressor from hurting or killing someone. Some may see it as pure semantics, I see it as the difference between temporary or permanent jail time. JM2CW.
Warpig, you might want to look up the legal term: "DISCOVERABLE" and change your post accordingly.
I am a huge supporter of SHOOTING TO STOP an aggressor from hurting or killing someone. Some may see it as pure semantics, I see it as the difference between temporary or permanent jail time. JM2CW.
OK My Google -fu is weak today I have looked legal term"DISCOVERABLE" and have not come up with anything please explain the meaning and I will change it or which part are you refering to what the sheriff buddies said??:confused:
the sheriff I was talking about DAD was in a headlock by the crackhead with a ice pick ,the crackhead was trying to stab him in the chest .would that not be right to use deadly force:confused:instead he shot the guy in the leg ,just to get him off his dad.
John_Wayne777
12-19-08, 12:16
OK My Google -fu is weak today I have looked legal term"DISCOVERABLE" and have not come up with anything please explain the meaning and I will change it or which part are you refering to what the sheriff buddies said??:confused:
Stuff you post on the internet can and will be used against you in a court of law should the wrong kind of people get their hands on the information.
As such, it would be wise to avoid making statements about what you will do in a nasty situation to avoid the possibility of being painted as a wing nut who was itching for a chance to kill somebody and claim SD.
You shoot to stop the hostile actions of an aggressor who threatens your life.
Stuff you post on the internet can and will be used against you in a court of law should the wrong kind of people get their hands on the information.
As such, it would be wise to avoid making statements about what you will do in a nasty situation to avoid the possibility of being painted as a wing nut who was itching for a chance to kill somebody and claim SD.
You shoot to stop the hostile actions of an aggressor who threatens your life.
got you !!thanks I changed my post to "Shoot to stop the threat"is that a better term I learn something new everyday here thanks for watching my back guys.sometimes the words just don't come out right.
Some people just want to see something their way and find fault regardless of presented facts, I suppose.
And some people clearly baulk at the idea of others calling their actions into question. I have to question your motive for posting this incident in the first place - what were you expecting - hearty back slaps and comments like "good job Bro"? I'm glad that you were able to walk away from this (in the physical sense of the word anyway) but please don't try and legitimize what could have been a recipe for disaster.
If you haven't walked in my shoes, your opinion is semi-qualified at best to judge my actions or similar ones by any individual in such a tight spot.
All I have to say on that is some of us here carry weapons in areas far less permissive than NJ sir. We may just have something constructive to add.
I agree with Army Chief on this one though - no point flogging a dead horse.
shadowalker
12-19-08, 15:04
I fired into the air to disperse a threat from multiple armed individuals.
You did disperse them without shooting them, but bullets were sent into the air with no idea what or who they would hit. Plenty of people have been wounded and killed by stray bullets fired into the air.
My state has very strong self defense laws but here I would very likely be charged with discharge of a firearm in city limits.
People usually fire warning shots are in situations where lethal force wouldn't be justified in which case they shouldn't be firing at all. If lethal force is justified that means the person is trying to kill or gravely injure me or a loved one, I'm not interested in doing them favors.
Warning shots also require identifying a place to fire, pointing your weapon and probably your eyes away from the threat , which may be armed and may decide the best response to your warning shots is to shoot you.
And some people clearly baulk at the idea of others calling their actions into question. I have to question your motive for posting this incident in the first place
Question my motive for posting the incident? I believe the motive was very clear: It fits well into the theme of the thread. What's the problem?
OK, we can call it a day here with the thread, that's certainly fine by me. But before we go, since you admit calling my actions into question, maybe you can tell me what you would have done to better handle the situation.
Remember, the basic options are:
1. Run in house and call the police.
2. Fist fight 3 armed males.
3. Grab gun and point it at them, hoping they see it in the dark and drive off.
4. Grab gun and fire shots to disperse threat.
5. Grab gun and kill everyone.
I chose 4. Assuming you actually read my story, what would you have done?
faithmyeyes
12-19-08, 16:14
Assuming you actually read my story, what would you have done?
1. Grab the gun, run inside the house, call the police.
2. Wait for the threat to either leave or escalate.
3. Use the gun for in-home defense if necessary, or, hopefully, just have a conversation with the police when they arrive.
4. Move to a state with sensible self-defense laws.
I get what you're saying and why you did what you did. I don't see any sense in arguing the point, because it doesn't appear that even you are maintaining that you chose the best option, only that what you did choose left you with fewer legal problems than had you elected to fire directly on the threats.
Question my motive for posting the incident? I believe the motive was very clear: It fits well into the theme of the thread. What's the problem?
OK, we can call it a day here with the thread, that's certainly fine by me. But before we go, since you admit calling my actions into question, maybe you can tell me what you would have done to better handle the situation.
Remember, the basic options are:
1. Run in house and call the police.
2. Fist fight 3 armed males.
3. Grab gun and point it at them, hoping they see it in the dark and drive off.
4. Grab gun and fire shots to disperse threat.
5. Grab gun and kill everyone.
I chose 4. Assuming you actually read my story, what would you have done?
Geez man, I thought my 7 year old nephew was obtuse. You're like a dog with a bone - let it go. Also refer to the advice someone gave Warpig above. I note that he accepted this "graciously". Look that one up.
Safety,
Taking into account the restrictions that are placed upon the residents of New Jersey my action would have been as follows;
1. Retrieved my weapon.
2. Secured my house and simultaneously called the police. I would have advised them of the situation and that I was armed.
3. My family members if home would have been moved into a room away from the front door.
4. Stood my ground until either the perpetrators attempted entry or the police arrived.
Geez man, I thought my 7 year old nephew was obtuse. You're like a dog with a bone - let it go. Also refer to the advice someone gave Warpig above. I note that he accepted this "graciously". Look that one up.
Great non-answer. Always easier to go smoke and mirrors when you have nothing meaningful to say. Isn't it a bit silly to be concerned about publicly stating that one would defend themselves within the law, as most here have? No one is advocating committing a crime that I have seen, including myself.
Faithmyeyes, you are exactly correct. I did not say I chose the best option, as running in the house was the most sensible thing I/we could have done. At the fearless age of 19 I felt I had to retaliate to some degree, so I did what I did.
Sorry for hijacking your thread, OP.
Here is the deal-e-o...
An intruder inside the domicile is not there to bake brownies for you. He is there to rob/kill/plunder...you name it.
In such a situation there is a reasonable expectation by the homeowner to feel that they are in grave danger...killing an intruder in this instance is a best case scenario. Dead intruders can't argue what did or did not happen whiel they were in your home. In can be easily shown in most such cases that the shooting is justified.
Firing of warning shots is in no way, shape or form justified....it may be deserved and it may seem like a good idea but it is not justified and you open up the can of liability if you chose to do that.
Firing a warning shot means that in all liklihood, the intruder [would be] is not in your immediate area....he is at least some distance from you [was in the cae posted by the OP] and can very certainly be shown not to have been a significant enough threat to you that you felt the need to discharge your weapon. You will be told you should have just let him leave.
No Rambo crap....that is bad decision and arrogant behavior and attitude....get you in the can more times than not.
In my home, unless you get the rare drop on me...you will be found there by the authorities because you will be taken out and there will only be one side to the story.
Outside the home and leaving.....verbal threat that you are gonna die if you proceed, followed up by a call to 911 and a thorough description to the LEO that come on scene.
Great non-answer. Always easier to go smoke and mirrors when you have nothing meaningful to say.
Fine, I take it all back - I'm simply in awe. What a pro. Can I get some trigger time with you? What books do you have out? I give up LOL.
There is a good reason why threads like this do not survive. Generally because people start thinking their method is better than everyone elses. No one can really say what they will do until they have been put into a deadly force situation. I have been there and seen that first hand.
Understand the laws of your locale. Plan your response accordingly. Develop the proper mindset and seek out training that doesn't consist of just punching paper. Force on Force is a good teaching tool among other things. Be vigilant, be prepared, and act responsibly.
No one can really say what they will do until they have been put into a deadly force situation.
Amen. I have attended a couple of Sims classes, and even in role playing scenarios it's amazing how things never work out the way I hoped they would.
Fine, I take it all back - I'm simply in awe. What a pro. Can I get some trigger time with you? What books do you have out? I give up LOL.
Portraying me as advocating my actions as opposed to sharing my experience makes you the short-sighted fool that you are. I stated warning shots can be effective, not that my reaction that night as a 19 year old was textbook.
Sorry I couldn't impress a real know-it-all such as yourself.
I know your history on other forums boy. I's tread carefully here if I were you.
Jay Cunningham
12-21-08, 09:01
This thread has run its course.
Portraying me as advocating my actions as opposed to sharing my experience makes you the short-sighted fool that you are. I stated warning shots can be effective, not that my reaction that night as a 19 year old was textbook.
Sorry I couldn't impress a real know-it-all such as yourself.
1) I am NOT a lawyer
2) I have been in a few use of force incidents.
ANY discharge of a firearm is a use of force. That force level is deadly force. IF you fire a warning shot - the point can be made that you used deadly force without reason.
Your entire course of action will be examined in hindsight - you must make decisions in the moment, and you must be able to articulate your actions and perceivied threat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.