Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manta49
In the examples the problem that I can see was not the fact that they fired a warning shot, but that they were judged not to have being justified to have used their firearm.
|
Exactly!!! That's one of the many reasons to not fire a warning shot! Did you read any of what I wrote in posts #65 and #67? By firing a warning shot, you're often making it appear that you weren't justified to use your firearm. After all, if you were truly justified in using your firearm, you would have actually fired
at your attacker. But if you fire a warning shot, you make it appear that you didn't believe your life was in danger at that moment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manta49
Do you shoot him anyway to justify you brandishing your firearm.
|
No! As soon as the threat stops so should your use of deadly force.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manta49
Do you think if in some of your examples you posted, if they shot and killed or injured the people everything would have being fine.
|
Possibly. But that's not because it's "more legal" to shoot someone unjustifiably than to fire a warning shot. Keep in mind that the authorities usually have to piece together what happened based on incomplete evidence. If you shoot someone unjustifiably but there's no evidence that it was unjustified, then there's not much for the police to go on. But, in some cases, the act of firing of a warning shot can give evidence that the use of a firearm was unjustified.
As for your Massad Ayoob quote, notice that he still says in that article that warning shots are a bad idea. Sure, sometimes they have worked from a tactical standpoint and sometimes they haven't resulted in an arrest. But just because you do something stupid and you don't face consequences, that doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to begin with.