- Oct 11, 2006
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
So let me get this straight, if someone with ill intentions comes on your property and even if they aren't armed, it is better to kill them so as to avoid a legal hassle and possibly prison? Something seems terribly wrong about that but then again, if they live, it's your word against theirs.Laws vary from state to state, but most go something like this:
1. You are not allowed to shoot someone to defend property only.
2. Any time you shoot someone, it is normally considered "lethal force". Even if they don't die, shooting someone is typically considered evidence of intent to kill, even if you claim intent to wound.
Admitting that you "shot to wound", can be used against you in court. It will be considered evidence that you did not consider the situation serious enough to warrant deadly force, yet as I mentioned, shooting someone AT ALL is usually considered deadly force regardless of your point of aim. In essence you are admitting to using a lethal weapon in a situation that you felt was not worth killing over. I'll grant you that this is a legal construct whose literal application probably goes outside of common sense in some cases, but it is a fact that admitting "I shot to wound" can put you in prison.
This goes back to "when arrested, say NOTHING except 'I want my lawyer'." :mrgreen:
Kewl, I love a man in uniform. I concede you are definitely the expert in this discussion.I am a former law enforcement officer. To my knowlege, "shooting to wound" is not a normal part of any PD's curriculum. Even a bullet in the arm can kill, by severing the brachial artery. A bullet in the foot is potentially fatal if infection sets in. In some few VERY RARE scenarios, a SNIPER may shoot to disable, but that is not typical.
But in the same token, by not giving a warning shot, aren't you endangering the bystanders just as much if they have no warning and and get caught in the crossfire? And as is often the case, public opinion turns against the police when they shoot and kill unarmed civilians, especially when it is witnessed by bystanders that the officers could have just wounded them."Warning shots" are also disallowed in most if not all PD's. It was found that warning shots endangered bystanders too much. Tactically a warning shot takes you off target for a moment, and gives the perp a moment of time when he is not covered by your weapon.
I would think as a "peace" officer you would be obligated to give the person the chance to back down. The public puts their trust in the police to not only protect them, but to not kill them as well. Either way, it's gotta be a tough job to be a policeman.Now, about this business of "Waving a gun to scare someone off"... yes and no. As an LEO, if I drew a pistol it was with the intention of using it if necessary... but in some cases the person backed down at the last possible instant and saved their life thereby.
That sounds just like the movies. Seriously, I'm glad you lived to tell the tale. In Utah, it is legal for anyone to open carry, so who needs a concealed weapon permit? But ironically, it is illegal to carry an open beer. But here again, if it is legal to openly carry a firearm then why is that any different than waving the gun to deter a perp as opposed to actually shooting him?Since leaving LE, as a private citizen with a concealed carry permit, I've been in some dangerous situations. Awareness and decision-making skills are critical, as I teach in my self-defense and handgunning classes. I don't want to ever be so far behind the curve that I am drawing against an already-drawn-gun... that's a good way to get killed, unless done from behind cover. For one example, I was once targeted for some kind of street-crime. One perp approached from the front, trying to get my attention. Being trained to watch for this kind of thing, I moved to one side and looked for the partner I assumed he probably had, and saw him coming up behind me. Both exhibited body language consistent with "threat behavior". Finding myself bracketed by two men of apparently criminal intentions, I put my hand on my weapon and prepared to draw. When they saw this, they both veered off in opposite directions and left the area. Had they not done so, I would have completed my draw if they continued to close on me, as 2 on 1 is legally equivalent to deadly force in my state. What would have happened at that point is pure speculation, but if they had immediately ceased their threatening behavior I would not necessarily have fired. Waiting until they had me pinned between them and a gun in my face or knife at my back would have been "less than ideal."
I agree. But if you know that is a possiblity then why not the pull the gun out sooner to use as a deterent instead of waiting for the perp to show his gun or is at arms length?On the "square range" you are commonly shooting at ranges of 7-25 yards. In the street, perps often wait until they have you up close, like arm's length or less, before they even let you see the weapon... and at that point you're in serious trouble, especially if he has a partner behind you.
This is so true. And I don't think any "civilian" can honestly say they know how they would react in a hostile situation until it is upon them.Things are not always black and white in the real world.
But I want to reiterate the reason I bought my gun was to protect my property and as far as I know, that right is protected by the constitution. I remember how it was during the LA riots and the police were no where to be found for days. It was a mad house. On the news there were some Korean business owners whose businesses were getting looted and destroyed by their own neighbors. So they went and bought guns, came back and started shooting at the looters. When you see the video below, it's amazing nobody was killed, but it did stop the looting of their businesses and public opinion was on their side. Days later, after the dust settled and things returned to normal, most of the looters returned the goods they stole. I must say, that kind of renewed my faith and hope for humanity somewhat, because if they had been killed they wouldn't have had that chance to redeam themselves. But my point is, if the Korean business owners had guns to use as a deterent from the very start, no one would have tried or have gotten into their businesses to do the damage they did and they probably wouldn't have needed to go on a shooting spree after the fact.
LA riots – Looters and Korean business owners defending their stores | Newsnet 14