Warning shot fired after road rage incident

[TMF]

Of course you're right. Retreating to a fortified position couldn't be nearly as smart as standing in the open with an unknown assailant. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Circumstances always dictate. There is no single solution which covers all scenarios, and I stand by the logic of containing what has already been identified as a threat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bill4282]

Called a pelvic shot. If done properly, splits the pelvis and instantly terminates use of the legs. Often occurs when the target isn't the pelvis but in the same area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bill4282]

My comment about shooting the leg was in deference to shooting into the ground which would not stop any serious threat.. Apparent the shooter did not want to/couldn't shoot center mass. Reminds me of the lady that told me she wanted a pretty gun that would scare someone because she couldn't hurt anyone. Told her to get a baseball bat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTE]

Called a pelvic shot. If done properly, splits the pelvis and instantly terminates use of the legs. Often occurs when the target isn't the pelvis but in the same area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some trainers teach the pelvic shot as a COM hit, or an alternative when a BG has been shot numerous time COM and is still mobile and advancing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrickyNicky]

Wrong thread

Edited November 11, 2015 by TrickyNicky

[TMF]

Wrong thread

Haze yourself, troop!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrickyNicky]

Haze yourself, troop!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

:ugh:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjwWjx7Cw8I

 

:rock:

[chances R]

They evidently teach firing warning shots all the time in New York

 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cops-fire-84-shots-at-robbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police/ar-AAdWWsv?ocid=iehp

[Clod Stomper]

They evidently teach firing warning shots all the time in New York
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cops-fire-84-shots-at-robbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police/ar-AAdWWsv?ocid=iehp

I'll give them credit. At least they're improving. According to the article, no bystanders were hit.

That's an improvement. Edited November 12, 2015 by Clod Stomper

[Cruel Hand Luke]

As someone who teaches the HCP class and someone who has spent a large amount of time trying to educate myself on issues of use of force, I will tell you what I tell people in class. 

 

If you are JUSTIFIED in pulling your gun you are justified in shooting them....period. There is no level of force that is "shooting but not really trying to hit them" which is what a warning shot is. Just like there is not a level of "shooting them just a little bit"....Deadly force is deadly force. and to intentionally OR KNOWINGLY use force that you knew could be deadly IS use of deadly force.  Legally it is almost always going to be looked at as either reckless endangerment (or some similarly worded offense) or even as evidence that the one who fired it was not in fear of grave bodily injury or death to the point that they NEEDED to shoot the BG. And if the level of fear (for a reasonable person) had not risen to that level then the use of the gun is not justified. You MIGHT get lucky and not get charged...but luck is not a strategy and you are a damn fool if you want to take those kind of chances with the legal system on purpose. 

 

The other issue is where does the bullet end up? If you fire a warning shot that strikes someone then you are in for a really rough time. Accidentally shooting someone who did not need to be shot or even accidentally shooting the guy who NEEDED to be shot is still not OK. Self defense is an affirmative act.....not an accident. Massad Ayoob talks in his lectures in class about a guy in NY who is still sitting in jail because he said he "accidentally" shot the guy that was attacking him....when it goes down on paper as an accident you cannot claim self defense. So he is in jail for accidentally shooting someone.....even though the guy was attacking him and the guy needed to be shot. So if you fire a warning shot and it actually ricochets and hits someone then you are opening doors of legal Hell that you really don't ever want opened. Warning shots are just not a good idea...... 

 

So do what you want. But there is no level of fear where it is OK to fire a warning shot. That is NOT a level of the force continuum. Deadly force is either warranted or not...and firing a gun IS DEADLY FORCE. As a civilian your force continuum  pretty much goes from verbal to pepper spray (an irritant with no long lasting effects) to physical force with hands/feet to lethal force which would include ANY tool that could cause death...that means knives, clubs, guns, etc. Because you do not get the same training that police do the civilian use of an impact weapon will almost always be viewed as either aggravated assault at worst or lawful use of deadly force at best. Just like producing a knife...that is DEADLY FORCE and there is no level that is OK with "cutting them just a little". If you employ the blade it is either aggravated assault or it will be justified use of lethal force. Firing a gun to get someone's attention and or scare them is NOT in there anywhere. Might you escape without getting charged with something like reckless endangerment if you fire a warning shot? Yes....you might very well........ but that is an awful  risky proposition. Remember there is case law in TN where someone was convicted because they DIDN'T shoot someone who was threatening them and just produced the weapon to frighten them. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Cruel Hand Luke

[TMF]

Moral of the story is shoot them in the face then? Considering that far more people are killed with bats and clubs each year than scary assault rifles, I'd say being attacked with a bat would cause reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTE]

Moral of the story is shoot them in the face then? Considering that far more people are killed with bats and clubs each year than scary assault rifles, I'd say being attacked with a bat would cause reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This seems to miss the point. What CHL is saying is that....if you truly believe that the guy with the club is trying to kill you....you should draw and shoot him. Shooting at the ground 1)demonstrates that you truly didn't fear for life and 2) has an almost unlimited amount of unintended consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cruel Hand Luke]

This seems to miss the point. What CHL is saying is that....if you truly believe that the guy with the club is trying to kill you....you should draw and shoot him. Shooting at the ground 1)demonstrates that you truly didn't fear for life and 2) has an almost unlimited amount of unintended consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EXACTLY.....

[TMF]

This seems to miss the point. What CHL is saying is that....if you truly believe that the guy with the club is trying to kill you....you should draw and shoot him. Shooting at the ground 1)demonstrates that you truly didn't fear for life and 2) has an almost unlimited amount of unintended consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't disagree that this may raise a number of legal issues, but I can't accept the absolute that a person cannot be in fear for their lives while at the same time not want to take the life of another. This happens all the time with victims who pull a weapon but do not fire.

I don't have this problem, but that doesn't mean I immediately dismiss someone else who does. Nor am I recommending this as a standard course of action or technique which should be adopted by trainers and students. I'm just saying I have no issues with his actions. Both people are alive. He not only would have been justified in shooting this person, it seems, based on the circumstances, he may have been beaten to death with a bat had he not done something to stop the attacker. He did, and now another human gets to go on living, and perhaps turn his life around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited November 14, 2015 by TMF

[Cruel Hand Luke]

And they'd all most likely be alive if he had not fired the gun either. The issue is not that he did not shoot...the issue is that he shot...at something OTHER than the thing that was the threat to him.....

 

Of course you can choose to not shoot someone and still be in fear for your life. People do it every day. MOST people you point a gun at will stop their attack , especially if you look serious about killing them if they don't stop. No one (at least I am not) saying you HAVE to shoot everyone you pull a gun on.  And I know for a FACT that you ABSOLUTELY can convince people that if they take one more step they are going to get shot and you can do it WITHOUT firing the gun into the ground. I know...I have done it....and cops do it quite often....without skipping warning shot ricochets off the pavement of every city in America. But if you pull the gun, and fire it at something OTHER than the threat then you just opened a legal door that whether you like it or not is real. Anyone remember the woman in Ga who was convicted of reckless endangerment (IIRC) or maybe it was aggravated assault for firing a warning shot at her husband who was beating her?

 

I'll say it again...no matter how we might FEEL about it....warning shots are a terrible idea.

[TMF]

And they'd all most likely be alive if he had not fired the gun either. The issue is not that he did not shoot...the issue is that he shot...at something OTHER than the thing that was the threat to him.....

Of course you can choose to not shoot someone and still be in fear for your life. People do it every day. MOST people you point a gun at will stop their attack , especially if you look serious about killing them if they don't stop. No one (at least I am not) saying you HAVE to shoot everyone you pull a gun on. And I know for a FACT that you ABSOLUTELY can convince people that if they take one more step they are going to get shot and you can do it WITHOUT firing the gun into the ground. I know...I have done it....and cops do it quite often....without skipping warning shot ricochets off the pavement of every city in America. But if you pull the gun, and fire it at something OTHER than the threat then you just opened a legal door that whether you like it or not is real. Anyone remember the woman in Ga who was convicted of reckless endangerment (IIRC) or maybe it was aggravated assault for firing a warning shot at her husband who was beating her?

I'll say it again...no matter how we might FEEL about it....warning shots are a terrible idea.

I'm not certain of the full story or exact circumstances he was facing, but I got the impression from the story that he pulled his firearm and the guy continued to advance. If this is the case, then it would appear that it stopped the attack where merely pulling the firearm did not.

I'll say once again, I'm not arguing legalities here. I completely understand that firing a warning shot opens one up to a host of legal issues, and I also understand that this is completely off limits in the realm of firearms self defense instruction. I just don't accept absolute statements that say it is never acceptable to do something. Every scenario is different. Perhaps this guy would rather face legal ramifications than kill another human being. That isn't proof or absolute evidence that he wasn't in fear for his life or that he is foolish. As with ricochets, we don't know where is round went. For all we know it went directly into the soft earth in front of him. I've shot a whole lot in my day, and the statistical possibility of a low velocity bullet from a pistol, shot directly into the ground will result in a ricochet, unless there is something hard in the ground, such as concrete or gravel.

Like I said before, I'm not condoning this as an accepted practice, but I sure as hell am not going to Monday morning quarterback his actions, especially since the story worked out just fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited November 15, 2015 by TMF

[FTE]

The article says nothing about a continued advance after the gun was drawn. And I'm not so sure how well it worked out since he's facing a charge as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

MOST people you point a gun at will stop their attack , especially if you look serious about killing them if they don't stop. No one (at least I am not) saying you HAVE to shoot everyone you pull a gun on.  And I know for a FACT that you ABSOLUTELY can convince people that if they take one more step they are going to get shot and you can do it WITHOUT firing the gun into the ground. I know...I have done it....and cops do it quite often....without skipping warning shot ricochets off the pavement of every city in America.

And I have fired a warning shot prior to trying to kill someone.

My statement was that I was getting ready to kill a 16 year old and I was exhausting every option I had available to me prior to going that. I thought he was pulling a gun on me, but I wasn’t absolutely sure. I told my superiors I knew I was violating department policy and would do it again under the same situation. He lived, I lived, and it changed our department policy.

The kid did have a handgun and he was going to shoot me. No matter how scary you looked at him or what you yelled it would not have stopped that hand coming from the waistband; a warning shot did.
 

I'll say it again...no matter how we might FEEL about it....warning shots are a terrible idea.

You say that because that’s how you have been trained. You obviously have never been in a situation where taking a life or firing a warning shot was the options. Or maybe you have; I don’t know.

Of course it’s a terrible idea; shooting people is a terrible idea. You will be judged by your peers and possible by the courts. Every arm chair quarterback will give their opinion on what you did. I do that and so does everyone else here. But I try to keep it real; I try to think what that person was going through and give them the benefit of the doubt; not give what I think would be the correct answer in a training class.

This is why people need to train. It is also why they need to go through possible scenarios in their mind. It’s why they need to train without using sights and seeing just how good their “shot placement” skills are. It’s why they need to quit standing at the 3 yard line and trying to shoot the center out of a target.

I would suspect that in your classes you teach people to do whatever it takes to stay alive; use all the tools you have at your disposal. Well whether you like it or not; it’s a tool that is available and it gets used a lot. A trained professional wouldn’t skip a shot across pavement into bystanders; every tool is dependent on the circumstances you are faced with at that very second in your life. You will be held responsible for making the right choice; no one will care what your instructor told you or what you think the rules were.

[TrickyNicky]

And I have fired a warning shot prior to trying to kill someone.My statement was that I was getting ready to kill a 16 year old and I was exhausting every option I had available to me prior to going that. I thought he was pulling a gun on me, but I wasn’t absolutely sure. I told my superiors I knew I was violating department policy and would do it again under the same situation. He lived, I lived, and it changed our department policy.The kid did have a handgun and he was going to shoot me. No matter how scary you looked at him or what you yelled it would not have stopped that hand coming from the waistband; a warning shot did. You say that because that’s how you have been trained. You obviously have never been in a situation where taking a life or firing a warning shot was the options. Or maybe you have; I don’t know.Of course it’s a terrible idea; shooting people is a terrible idea. You will be judged by your peers and possible by the courts. Every arm chair quarterback will give their opinion on what you did. I do that and so does everyone else here. But I try to keep it real; I try to think what that person was going through and give them the benefit of the doubt; not give what I think would be the correct answer in a training class.This is why people need to train. It is also why they need to go through possible scenarios in their mind. It’s why they need to train without using sights and seeing just how good their “shot placement” skills are. It’s why they need to quit standing at the 3 yard line and trying to shoot the center out of a target.I would suspect that in your classes you teach people to do whatever it takes to stay alive; use all the tools you have at your disposal. Well whether you like it or not; it’s a tool that is available and it gets used a lot. A trained professional wouldn’t skip a shot across pavement into bystanders; every tool is dependent on the circumstances you are faced with at that very second in your life. You will be held responsible for making the right choice; no one will care what your instructor told you or what you think the rules were.

Dave, we've had differences in opinion, but I wish I could like this post twice. Very well said, thanks for sharing your experience. :up:

[Cruel Hand Luke]

 You obviously have never been in a situation where taking a life or firing a warning shot was the options. Or maybe you have; I don’t know.
 

 

After I kept him from stabbing me by jamming his knife arm with my left hand I accessed my pistol with my right and I struck him with it and that backed him out of the car ( I was seated in passenger seat with door open and he was standing there reaching into the car). As we seperated I brought the gun up to eye level and took up the slack on the trigger ....he backed away and I did not have to shoot him. I didn't fire a warning shot because I guess he got the message from my actions that hanging around was probably going to go badly. So in my experience the warning shot was not needed....and in MOST situations I have seen, or heard of or read of they are rarely needed, or recommended.

 

In your case , I was not there and can not speak on that with any authority, but in that case then obviously it worked out for you .... and all is well that ends well....but we often do things that turn out OK that on further review may not have been the best solution. Sometimes fortuitous outcomes can reinforce bad tactics. I certainly would have done things different in my own situation and given the chance again would have preempted the attack without having to draw my gun or would have taken a course of acton that did not lead to me LUCKILY escaping a clinch halfway in a car with a knife armed opponent miraculously without being cut. But I see that not as a "I did the right thing" because it worked out I see it as ..."I got lucky that time" and I do not recommend the same course of action to others.

 

If a warning shot is all you have to keep you from having to shoot a kid then I'd agree that was the right action in that case....but that is a rare situation indeed.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Cruel Hand Luke