do you give a warning or not?

[Rob10ring]

Although I live in California, I took a Utah CCW class last weekend. In part to further the cause of CCW by showing that citizens have an interest in possessing them, but also to have the RIGHT to protect myself in the many states that recognize Utah's CCW (they'll be the only states to see our vacation dollars). The instructor, Clark Aposhian, who is also the Chairman of the State of Utah Concealed Weapon Hearing/Licensure Board, gave the best, most sensible answer to a question about warning/wounding shots that I've ever heard and I'll keep it in mind always.

He said that warning shots and wounding shots were like tools that you've had in your toolbox since before you can remember. You never use them and you may never ever need them and they are probably inappropriate for 99.9% of situations. They are small enough to keep stored away and just because you don't use them doesn't mean that you have to throw them away. There is always the slightest possibility that those tools may come in useful and may help you to get home to your family someday.

He did point out that Utah law doesn't allow for these types of shots and that there are risks.

When there is a police shooting where someone says, "why didn't they shoot him in the hand?", or something like that. I point out that cops don't take chances with trick shooting. However, I remember a televised shooting where a man with a revolver tried to commit suicide by cop and a sniper used his little hidden away tool, when he shot the cylinder out of the revolver.

In California, we have no castle doctrine, but I'll keep those little tools stored away for some unforeseen circumstance.

[Pathfinder]

Fuzdaddy reminded me of something I did not remember in the dark of night in my last post. This re' "shoot to wound".

Remember the various news stories about cops in a shootout, and the news reports go something like - "Police say they fired 42 shots at the suspect, of which 4 hit him"? And the cops are required to qualify on a regular basis.

In a high-stress situation, you cannot even count on hitting center-mass, so you're going to try to shoot him in the shoulder (like in the old TV shows) or the hand (ditto), maybe the leg? Please, ain't gonna happen except for a lucky shot.

As for the sniper, that is a different story - they receive range time and training way above what an average cop gets. Besides, there they are, prone, or with the highly accurate weapon stabilized in some manner, scope, etc. That is a very different shot than being a civilian in his home in the middle of the night, groggy from sleep, trying to sort out what's happening, and confronting an intruder in the hallway.

One other thing, if the BG turns out not to be armed, I would think a prosecutor - esp a lefty anti-gun one - could make your life very miserable for a long time.

[tombogan03884]

If you do not have the mindset to use a defensive fire arm as it was intended, in other words shooting the BG until he ceases to be a threat, then you should forget it, lock it up for range use and get a dog.

[TAB]

Fuzdaddy reminded me of something I did not remember in the dark of night in my last post. This re' "shoot to wound".

Remember the various news stories about cops in a shootout, and the news reports go something like - "Police say they fired 42 shots at the suspect, of which 4 hit him"? And the cops are required to qualify on a regular basis.

In a high-stress situation, you cannot even count on hitting center-mass, so you're going to try to shoot him in the shoulder (like in the old TV shows) or the hand (ditto), maybe the leg? Please, ain't gonna happen except for a lucky shot.

As for the sniper, that is a different story - they receive range time and training way above what an average cop gets. Besides, there they are, prone, or with the highly accurate weapon stabilized in some manner, scope, etc. That is a very different shot than being a civilian in his home in the middle of the night, groggy from sleep, trying to sort out what's happening, and confronting an intruder in the hallway.

One other thing, if the BG turns out not to be armed, I would think a prosecutor - esp a lefty anti-gun one - could make your life very miserable for a long time.

something like that happen in the bay area not to long ago 3 cops 1 with a ar 2 with thier side arms.  50 something shots 2 hits.  the guy from the ar fired all 30, another fired his mag, reloaded and shot some more.  the 3rd  fired 3 times.  the hits were ankle and upper arm.
all this at about 5 yds.

guess who got the hits?

the guy that fired 3 times. 

[Ichiban]

something like that happen in the bay area not to long ago 3 cops 1 with a ar 2 with thier side arms.  50 something shots 2 hits.  the guy from the ar fired all 30, another fired his mag, reloaded and shot some more.  the 3rd  fired 3 times.  the hits were ankle and upper arm.
all this at about 5 yds.

guess who got the hits?

the guy that fired 3 times.  Grin

Well, yeah, his buddies laying down suppressing fire. 

[Sponsor]

[brosometal]

Well, yeah, his buddies laying down suppressing fire. 

So I read through this entire thread and run across this.    It's a perfect example of why I keep coming back here.  Quality stuff. 

With the subject at hand, if you have a gun you need to be prepared to take a life. Period.  You can argue semantics of warn and not warn etc.  Unless you have trained countless hours you will default to your level of training.  I would hope that the only time I would come across this scenario would be here in discussion only.

[True_Texan]

Texas is very similar. Castle includes home, vehicle, property and business. When a repo man was shot and killed in Houston, the Grand Jury no-billed the shooter who stated that he thought that his property was being stolen. In the summer of 2008 case of Joe Horn. Mr. Horn left his home and pursued 2 criminals that were burgularizing his neighbors home. Mr. Horn was on the phone with a 911 operator. Even when told by the 911 operator to return to his home, Mr. Horn continued the pursuit. He told the 911 operator that he was going to shoot the men in question. The operator again told Mr. Horn not to do so and that law enforcement was on the way. All well documented on the 911 call. Long story short. Mr. Horn was also no billed. Don't mess with Texas!!!

Texas law allows you to actually shot someone who has stolen your property and is fleeing if they have taken something that is basically irreplaceable. And it allows the same thing for protection of a third party's property.

Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3)  he reasonably believes that:

(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Sec. 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2)  the actor reasonably believes that:

(A)  the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B)  he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C)  the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


So damn straight: Don't mess with Texas!

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

This is not legal advice...I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

[Kid Shelleen]

Thanks for the facts True !!!!

[red364]

Is a red dot on their chest enough warning??  Thats all they'll get from me!!

[Walter45Auto]

Is a Barking, German shepherd along with the "beware of dog" sign on the mailbox a good warning??? Would be for me, but then I've got integrity and good sense enough to work for the money for what I want instead of stealing.


But seriously, Castle doctrine or no, I think it's not a bad thing to give the bad guy warning before you have to shoot. Just one more thing to tell the judge and jury you tried every means possible before deadly force. And if a witness such as a Dallas police dispatcher hears that warning, that much better.

God willing, you and I'll never have to use any of this type of advice.