I can't say i'm a warning shot fan but they had to charge him with something? We can't have people actually standing up and protecting themselves now, especially with AR-15's. He needed to cower in fear until the appropriate people could get to him, there have been entirely too many BG's taken out lately by "civilians". It could have been a win-win, BG didn't break in and do any harm, good guy didn't need to take a life and BG as worthless as he probably is didn't have to die that day. One of these days maybe the police will quit trying to make criminals out of people who are not criminals.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Iraq vet charged with firing gun to scare suspected burglar
- Thread starter BHOWPE
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I can't say i'm a warning shot fan but they had to charge him with something? We can't have people actually standing up and protecting themselves now, especially with AR-15's. He needed to cower in fear until the appropriate people could get to him, there have been entirely too many BG's taken out lately by "civilians". It could have been a win-win, BG didn't break in and do any harm, good guy didn't need to take a life and BG as worthless as he probably is didn't have to die that day. One of these days maybe the police will quit trying to make criminals out of people who are not criminals.
Misplaced Yankee
Plinker
Because warning shots don't exist. If you fire a gun, you are introducing lethal force to a situation. You're either escalating or reacting to a situation. You can't go higher then lethal force. Therefore, shoot to kill or don't at all. Otherwise the prosecution has a field day on the shooter escalating the situatuon, so they're in the wrong. Once again, warning shots do not exist from a legal standard. So dont do it kids.
My reading comprehension not guud. But I guess if its just a moral issue, I wouldn't take a warning shot for very similar reasons. You don't know where the bullet will end up. You don't know how the person will react. Its just adding noise and confusion to an already stressed situation. Why do it? If they didn't think you were serious when drawing the gun and pointing it, will shooting the floor get the point across? It's just not worthwhile.
Last edited:
Good thing you caught that because I was ready to pounce.
Where do you get that?
You don't know how he will act when you draw your firearm. What's the difference?
Noise I couldn't care less about as long as I'm making it. And there's no confusion. Nothing has changed except I'm giving him one more chance to re-think his stupid decision. Maybe he didn't think I would actually pull the trigger when I drew it and pointed it at him. Maybe now he thinks differently.
Why not?
Will it? You can't answer that either.
If I had to guess, I'd probably agree, but I'm not going to hold someone to a stereotype when faced with a potentially life-or-death situation. Would you?
I disagree. If it stops the threat without taking a life, it's absolutely worthwhile (if that's a priority for the person defending himself).
Disclaimer: I don't have much respect, all right, none, for criminal life, so I will probably never take a warning shot. But unlike some INGOers, I don't think everybody has to do things the same way I do. In fact, I think on a purely hypothetical level, the homeowner/victim should be able to stop the threat in whatever manner he deems desirable. Whatever. Manner. I don't like to encumber my fellow man in his efforts to defend himself, his family, and his property. (And, yes, property is worth killing over.) I know the law has eroded our ability to protect what's ours, regrettably, but I wouldn't convict, in or out of court.
Ditto that.
At home the same laws to apply to all. Where and how we train does not have an effect on the 2A.
Misplaced Yankee
Plinker
Where do you get that?
Easy. Shoot guns. Watch where bullets end up. Crazy things happen. Even in the best of conditions, occiasionally something bounces weird or pings off something to who knows where. You can't control it 100%. Shoot the floor? It's coming into something at some sort of angle and careen off to who knows where. You can't control it. Even if you're 99% sure where it'll end up (shooting into a berm, at a range, that you've done 100 times before) is it worth the 1% insecurity? No.
You don't know how he will act when you draw your firearm. What's the difference?
You're right. You don't. But you introduced deadly force into the situation. You made that decision. Now it's your call if you want to use it. You can't halfway use deadly force. It doesn't work. And giving someone time to reconsider after you've drawn, pointed, and are ready is just being unsure. You're second guessing the situation. Either lethal force is needed, or not. If you pull that trigger, you are saying, yes, this person needs to die. Not "I'm introducing a 1400fps to general population for potential warning".
Noise I couldn't care less about as long as I'm making it. And there's no confusion. Nothing has changed except I'm giving him one more chance to re-think his stupid decision. Maybe he didn't think I would actually pull the trigger when I drew it and pointed it at him. Maybe now he thinks differently.
No. It's like if someone said they were going to punch you. Then they pull their hand back. Then they swing, and miss your face. Then they say it's a warning shot, and the next will hit. Seriously? How would this play out? In what world would this be an acceptable, encouraged solution to a situation? And things have changed. Let's say your next round doesn't chamber right. Let's say you needed that extra round for his buddy who came around the corner. Why? For almost no gain? Yes, I'm going to abstract situations, but you do realize you're not any safer with the gun in your hand unfired, or after you fire one shot, right?
Why not?
Reasons above abound.
Will it? You can't answer that either.
If I had to guess, I'd probably agree, but I'm not going to hold someone to a stereotype when faced with a potentially life-or-death situation. Would you?
Yes. If you aren't willing to use lethal force, a gun is not the right tool for the job. Carry pepper spray. Carry mace. Maybe a tazer. Use a big whistle. Maybe a stick. But not a gun. Guns are lethal force. They're not big noise makers. They're deadly force. I am going to hold the person in the apartment next to me to a higher standard if he starts popping "warning shots" through the walls. It's simple. It's something that the risk doesn't outweigh the potential consequences.
I disagree. If it stops the threat without taking a life, it's absolutely worthwhile (if that's a priority for the person defending himself).
No it's not. This is an easy stance for people who want guns banned to stand on. Then why don't we just take guns from here, and here, and here... If the threat requires lethal force, guns should be used. If it doesn't, it's the wrong tool for the job. You wouldn't use a 30lb sledgehammer to hang pictures in your living room, would you? This is what taking shots to get someone to stop what they are doing is equivalent of.
Disclaimer: I don't have much respect, all right, none, for criminal life, so I will probably never take a warning shot. But unlike some INGOers, I don't think everybody has to do things the same way I do. In fact, I think on a purely hypothetical level, the homeowner/victim should be able to stop the threat in whatever manner he deems desirable. Whatever. Manner. I don't like to encumber my fellow man in his efforts to defend himself, his family, and his property. (And, yes, property is worth killing over.) I know the law has eroded our ability to protect what's ours, regrettably, but I wouldn't convict, in or out of court.
So all bets are off? I can set rabid wolverines on kids who jump my fence for a ball? How bout shooting a neighbors dog that took off and ended up over here? Maybe taking a baseball bat to those annoying girl scouts who try and sell me cookies. These are all hypothetical threats in some way, shape, or form that I view plausible. So I can respond in Whatever. Manner. I view desirable? No. Not at all. It's simple. You either need to use force or don't, and lethal or not. I do believe that property can be worth killing for. I agree there. But there's a line. Get out of my car or I'll shoot is a warning. Firing a round over his shoulder is not, it's a missed round.
I know this won't be a popular view, but it's why warning shots are asinine.
It's the easiest argument in the world for a non-gun person to make the connection between firing a gun without fear for you life-why do you need a gun? If you draw a gun and pull the trigger, you are responsible for everything that comes out of the barrel. So why institute that risk for someone who you're accepting who's life isn't worth your's? If you couldn't pull the trigger on a person get another form of self defense, instead of launching random bullets to who knows where.
Also, read the local report every time you read the blaze. Here it is.
Arrest, firing of AR-15 follow 911 call | MailTribune.com
And the warning shot arrest.
KAJO 1270AM - Local News
And where he lives
Brentwood Village Apartments - Medford, OR
And what's in his back yard.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...&sa=X&ei=RlCpUblu4uzJAfL3gbAD&ved=0CC0Q8gEwAA
So guy, at apartments, shoots at a guy trying to run away over a fence with his back turned. This is not a good shot. Secondly, he says "warning shot" to try and make it better. Even though from a birds eye view there are no good backstops, just HOUSES IN EVERY DIRECTION. Gentlemen, and ladies, I rest my case.
I essentially agree, however I am willing to accept that he may have fired into the ground as he claims.
What is crystal clear at this point is that he did not shoot at a guy actively breaking into his home. At best, he fired a warning shot towards guy who had tried to break in, but had retreated and was fleeing.
I will say this again....and again if need be- gun owners need to stop the knee-jerk support of every guy who pulls a trigger claiming self-defense. Full facts first, then decide whether he is worthy of support. This guy- I can't support what he did.
....even though he's a vet and according to The Blaze, apparently vets can do no wrong.
HHmmmm...Interesting.
Firing a .223 in a manner to warn, in an apt. complex is just not the way to go. Let him come inside and wear him out with the assault rifle. Use it as it is labeled....assault the would be felon.
I was thinking about this just the other day, isn't it the case that firing a warning shot isn't really the crime here, but rather admitting to firing a warning shot is the actual crime? I mean, couldn't anyone just say they were trying to fire at the threat and just missed? 
I was thinking about this just the other day, isn't it the case that firing a warning shot isn't really the crime here, but rather admitting to firing a warning shot is the actual crime? I mean, couldn't anyone just say they were trying to fire at the threat and just missed?
I get what you're saying overall, but in this case, it seems as though the guy fired while the perp was fleeing. We can't ascertain if the shot was fired at the perp or the ground. Taking a shot while the bad guy is fleeing is a no no, even if it's at the ground.
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
Clint Eastwood would of just aimed his Garand and said "Get off my lawn."......thats your warning........nuff said.
Well, that's just great. You just made an argument not to go to the range. Thanks.
You assume a bit too much about where and how a warning shot is fired. There's no logical reason for that assumption. There's more potential risk in the actual shooting at the perp with multiple rounds than a warning shot taking with deliberate forethought and action.
Furthermore, there is a difference between the inherent value of a warning shot and one in which the circumstances are being defined for the sake of discussion. I have never said all conditions were favorable to a warning shot. Unlike you, who have said all conditions are UNfavorable to a warning shot. Just because Scenario A makes a warning shot a bad choice doesn't mean the concept of a warning shot is always bad.
I completely agree. Shooting to wound is the equivalent of halfway deadly force and it is not something I would ever practically support. But a warning shot is not "halfway deadly force." It is a show of force, exactly the same thing unholstering the firearm is.
Nonsense, I know where my line in the sand is. That doesn't mean I'm going to wait until the bad guy gets there to try to convince him not to cross it.
I don't recall ever saying anything differently.
Rubbish. You have nothing to support your claim that a warning shot is made without regard to surroundings in the first place.
In the second place, if I pull the trigger, I'm sending a message, but it may not necessarily be what you think it is. It may be that you have one last chance to change your mind. Or it may be "Too bad for you, *******, you blew it." YOU are projecting. YOU may operate on the premise that there's only one message it can send because YOU only choose to shoot under one condition. I am most definitely not so encumbered.
Isn't it ironic, though, that stopping the perp by shooting at him is done in one of 3 possible ways. One, he dies from the shot. Two, he's physically incapacitated by the shot. Or 3, he's changed his mind about continuing with his advances to avoid being shot again even though he's not dead and not physically incapacitated. Consider the warning shot a missed #3.
He gets the idea without actually getting shot.I'm getting a real kick out of your clairvoyance. Do you happen to know the lottery numbers for Wednesday's drawing?
The problem I have with your attempt to refute is that you have nothing but your preconceived notions. Since you cannot predict the behavior of the bad guy, all of your arguments are meaningless because they assume certain behaviors WILL follow.
All I have done is kept the door open to the use of warning shot as another tool in the tool box. I have never said it was a universally good idea. But for every hypothetical situation you conjure where the bad guy does X, I can fabricate a story where bad guy does Y. The difference is that I'm not telling you how to defend yourself based only on my assumptions.
This is the dumbest thing you've offered so far. If the gun fails to function correctly and I need a follow up shot, I'm equally hosed whether I wasted it on a warning shot or not.
Is there any other aspect of my life you'd like to control?
You are really bad about thinking something means something it doesn't mean. Where do you get the silly notion that the use of a warning shot is any indication that someone isn't willing to use deadly force? This isn't a rhetorical question. I would like a concrete, no bull**** answer how you get from one point to another. I don't think you can do it without admitting you ASSumed things that aren't true.
My gosh, you are an arrogant piece of work. My self defense is MY choice. Not yours. If preservation of life is a priority, and I feel when all things are considered that a warning shot will stop the threat and preserve life (even the bad guy's), then who the **** are you to tell me I can't/shouldn't?
You have a very myopic, one-sided viewpoint on the use of a warning shot. You have made it very clear that you are not a fan. Ironically you haven't offered one non-situation-specific reason for it. Though if I read between the lines of your poorly presented prosecution, I can probably glean what those are.
Are you new around here? Or just not familiar with my views on property rights?
Either way, yes, trespass on my property and threaten my life, my family's lives, or my property, and I feel like I should be able to do WHATEVER to stop you from doing that.
I get that you don't understand my position. You'd have to value property rights over societal conventions dictated by the flavor of the decade. You'd also have to understand that just because the law says something is illegal, it doesn't mean that said something should be illegal. It was once legal to keeps slaves. It's now illegal to carry a firearm without a permission slip. Are you really going to stick with the "It's the law" defense?
There is nothing of value in this comment. You can't support your position with a bunch of what-ifs based on assumptions that have no basis in fact.
Good. Now, would you like to try and tell me why warning shots are inherently bad ideas?
Misplaced Yankee
Plinker
Well, that's just great. You just made an argument not to go to the range. Thanks.
You assume a bit too much about where and how Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!". There's no logical reason for that assumption. There's more potential risk in the actual shooting at the perp with multiple rounds than Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" with deliberate forethought and action.
Furthermore, there is a difference between the inherent value of Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" and one in which the circumstances are being defined for the sake of discussion. I have never said all conditions were favorable to Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!". Unlike you, who have said all conditions are UNfavorable to Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!". Just because Scenario A makes Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" a bad choice doesn't mean the concept of Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" is always bad.
I completely agree. Shooting to wound is the equivalent of halfway deadly force and it is not something I would ever practically support. But Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" is not "halfway deadly force." It is a show of force, exactly the same thing unholstering the firearm is.
Nonsense, I know where my line in the sand is. That doesn't mean I'm going to wait until the bad guy gets there to try to convince him not to cross it.
I don't recall ever saying anything differently.
Rubbish. You have nothing to support your claim that Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" is made without regard to surroundings in the first place.
In the second place, if I Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!", I'm sending a message, but it may not necessarily be what you think it is. It may be that you have one last chance to change your mind. Or it may be "Too bad for you, *******, you blew it." YOU are projecting. YOU may operate on the premise that there's only one message it can send because YOU only choose to shoot under one condition. I am most definitely not so encumbered.
Isn't it ironic, though, that stopping the perp by shooting at him is done in one of 3 possible ways. One, he dies from the shot. Two, he's physically incapacitated by the shot. Or 3, he's changed his mind about continuing with his advances to avoid being shot again even though he's not dead and not physically incapacitated. Consider Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" a missed #3.
I'm getting a real kick out of your clairvoyance. Do you happen to know the lottery numbers for Wednesday's drawing?
The problem I have with your attempt to refute is that you have nothing but your preconceived notions. Since you cannot predict the behavior of the bad guy, all of your arguments are meaningless because they assume certain behaviors WILL follow.
All I have done is kept the door open to the use of Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" as another tool in the tool box. I have never said it was a universally good idea. But for every hypothetical situation you conjure where the bad guy does X, I can fabricate a story where bad guy does Y. The difference is that I'm not telling you how to defend yourself based only on my assumptions.
This is the dumbest thing you've offered so far. If the gun fails to function correctly and I need a follow up shot, I'm equally hosed whether I wasted it on Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" or not.
Is there any other aspect of my life you'd like to control?
You are really bad about thinking something means something it doesn't mean. Where do you get the silly notion that the use of Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" is any indication that someone isn't willing to use deadly force? This isn't a rhetorical question. I would like a concrete, no bull**** answer how you get from one point to another. I don't think you can do it without admitting you ASSumed things that aren't true.
My gosh, you are an arrogant piece of work. My self defense is MY choice. Not yours. If preservation of life is a priority, and I feel when all things are considered that Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" will stop the threat and preserve life (even the bad guy's), then who the **** are you to tell me I can't/shouldn't?
You have a very myopic, one-sided viewpoint on the use of Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!". You have made it very clear that you are not a fan. Ironically you haven't offered one non-situation-specific reason for it. Though if I read between the lines of your poorly presented prosecution, I can probably glean what those are.
Are you new around here? Or just not familiar with my views on property rights?
Either way, yes, trespass on my property and threaten my life, my family's lives, or my property, and I feel like I should be able to do WHATEVER to stop you from doing that.
I get that you don't understand my position. You'd have to value property rights over societal conventions dictated by the flavor of the decade. You'd also have to understand that just because the law says something is illegal, it doesn't mean that said something should be illegal. It was once legal to keeps slaves. It's now illegal to carry a firearm without a permission slip. Are you really going to stick with the "It's the law" defense?
There is nothing of value in this comment. You can't support your position with a bunch of what-ifs based on assumptions that have no basis in fact.
Good. Now, would you like to try and tell me why Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!" are inherently bad ideas?
Since you took a week to respond to my prior comment I ASSumed you just considered the point dead. Guess not. Sorry, since I don't know your customs, I only stumbled upon this post when I was going through old tabs on a computer. Now while I could point all all your points, and once again, systematically try to explain why there's no point to randomly introduce a round to the environment that you have no control over, I'm instead going to reward your arguments with something similar to the success rate of warning shots in my eyes, Randomly taking off your pants and screaming "I HAVE NO BACON!!"
My point in a TL
R is such; if your entire argument can be replaced by the stupidest thing you can do in a situation and still you can see someone using 90% your points in their argument, reassess your stance. The risk behind a warning shot isn't worth the risk. Carry a blank or pull a bullet out of your first round if you believe this is a good idea. Or maybe have one gun with blanks and one real one. Yeah, that works. But don't shoot random rounds into the air without intent to kill. It's not the same as upholstering, its swinging, or shooting.
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
The Funny Picture/Video Thread, 16th Edition…The laughs just keep on coming…- Latest: DeadeyeChrista'sdad
-
-
-
NWI INGO General Thread #27 - Fresh Pink Air On US-30 smells like...- Latest: 1775usmarine
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Bassat
- tmschuller
- littletommy
- TheGrumpyGuy
- Bighoss91
- printcraft
- jake 2000
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- hopcam
- steelhead
- Benjamin
- Scott58
- portercounty
- ancjr
- Chewie
- dieselrealtor
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Dirtebiker
- geronimojoe85
- KMaC
- Got SIG?
- knutty
- nhgluff
- Revdev86
- Bennettjh
- CB1911
- DaveO
- Tim1911
- turnerdye1
- glank09
- 1775usmarine
- Flash-hider
- d.kaufman
- bigdaddy1427
- SmileDocHill
- Bigdog357
- akethan
- Jmtbug21
- ChristianPatriot
- Zeb
- typarker
- Destro
- jwamplerusa
- ljk
- SOUP
- wabashman
- 66chevelle
- joshuamckee
- US1882
- Malware