Warning Shots: Ever justifiable?
- Thread starter PewPewPewCo
- Start date
You'd hand the advantage back to the attacker if you fire off a round in your house by intentionally missing the threat. The result: Temporarily blinding and disorienting you, and giving them time to assault you.
In your home is a bad example for this discussion. If he's in my home, with my kids, there are no warning shots. Even if I wanted to fire a warning shot, I have two kids bedrooms above me, my wife in the bedroom behind me, the baby's room to my left, that pretty much leaves the garage. I'm not turning my attention from an intruder to make sure that the warning shots land safely into my lawn mower. As much as that may please @Laufen.
okay lets just go with the rough facts I'm working with here.
Neighbor 1 and 2 get into a heated discussion/argument.
Neighbor 1 and 2 continue argument in Neighbor 1's home
Neighbor 1 eventually asks neighbor 2 to leave and he admittedly does not, but the argument moves outside just beyond the door
Neighbor 1 states that neighbor 2 then attempts to attack him, so neighbor 1 fires into the air
Neighbor 2 then goes home and waits for police
Neighbor 1 is likely going to claim self defense. the issue comes down to this, even if we accept that neighbor 2 attacked neighbor 1, should the affirmative defense of self defense be available or does the fact that it was a warning shot effectively nullify a claim to self defense? Should we disallow the use of warning shots in cases were lethal force would have been justified?
I talked it over with some friends and some thought people shouldnt be punished for attempting to preserve life(these were generally non gun owners) and others said it promoted careless firearm use and would lead to incidents escalating faster than if we disallowed warning shots (generally firearm owners held this opinion).
I think warning shots don't slow down escalation, but invite escalation before it may be necessary.
I'd say it is absolutely inviting escalation. You fight an attacker he is generally going to fight back. You start shooting and I'd say the chance of him shooting back is greatly increased. Unless of course he's unarmed, in which case, why the hell did you need to start shooting?
Where I live the more likely self defense scenario is with wild life. So...if I have laryngitis and can't yell, any nearby bear will get the benefit of a warning shot.
Since you posted an update in one of your last posts, i will comment based on that.
Even if his affirmative defense of self defense was gone, would he face any possible charges based on firing in that situation........and what other charges would the neighbor who was the aggressor still face in this situation?
Even if his affirmative defense of self defense was gone, would he face any possible charges based on firing in that situation........and what other charges would the neighbor who was the aggressor still face in this situation?
Outside of those details. I can see a warning shot 100% justifiable in certain circumstances.
I grew up in a very rural area of Michigan and while you were out in the woods, you knew your boundaries. For someone to see a trespasser on their land and fire a "warning shot" to get their attention followed by a who the hell are you or you are trespassing, was quite common back in the sticks.
It was uncommon to walk around unarmed, and to see someone on your land in the distance, a warning shot to get their attention is quite justified IMO. Perhaps that is just because I grew up around it.
I grew up in a very rural area of Michigan and while you were out in the woods, you knew your boundaries. For someone to see a trespasser on their land and fire a "warning shot" to get their attention followed by a who the hell are you or you are trespassing, was quite common back in the sticks.
It was uncommon to walk around unarmed, and to see someone on your land in the distance, a warning shot to get their attention is quite justified IMO. Perhaps that is just because I grew up around it.
H
Hoss
Guest
Theres a time and place for everything and for everything a time and a place. For centuries, navies around the world have fired across the bow of another ship as a way of letting them know they were locked, loaded and prepared to use deadly force.
Last edited by a moderator:
If/when the time arises there will be no warning shot fired. The only rounds fired will be at center mass
Never justified.
The gun might jam up. (That would be God's way of saying "you are a dumbass, you die now.")
The gun might jam up. (That would be God's way of saying "you are a dumbass, you die now.")
Closest thing I will ever give to a warning shot is if I miss due to adrenaline and crapping my pants.
Now, If it is multiple people like in a riot type situation it may be a different story, but that is a discussion for a different thread.
Now, If it is multiple people like in a riot type situation it may be a different story, but that is a discussion for a different thread.