Almost drew my gun yesterday

[Mokumbear]

I recently took an online driver safety course so I would not receive
any points after some minor traffic infraction.

One thing that stuck with me is "there is nothing on the highway worth dying for". I will add to that, "there is very little on the highway worth killing over.

What might see important in the heat of the moment might seem
as pointless after the fact.

For years, I have been very very careful to avoid anything that
could be interpreted as road range.

If someone is driving erratically and acting "mental", I try to keep as
much distance between our vehicles as possible.

No eye contact, no yelling, no bird flipping.
Get out of the area and call 911.

[pax]

Post #64 was very well done. I suggest everyone read it and follow the links.

pax

[indie_rocker]

An excerpt from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-suprem.../1106701.html#, last paragraph is interesting.

The statement of the governing principles of self-defense as set forth in People v. Doe, 1 Mich. 451, 456-457 (1850), is indicative of the common-law rules that were in place when the Legislature enacted Michigan's murder statutes just four years earlier.   These principles remain apropos today and have not been modified since their implicit codification more than 150 years ago:

First. That a man who, in the lawful pursuit of his business, is attacked by another under circumstances which denote an intention to take away his life, or do him some enormous bodily harm, may lawfully kill the assailant, provided he use all the means in his power, otherwise, to save his own life or prevent the intended harm;  such as retreating as far as he can, or disabling his adversary without killing him, if it be in his power.[21]

Secondly. When the attack upon him is so sudden, fierce and violent, that a retreat would not diminish, but increase his danger, he may instantly kill his adversary without retreating at all.

Thirdly. When from the nature of the attack, there is reasonable ground to believe that there is a design to destroy his life, or commit any felony upon his person, the killing of the assailant will be excusable homicide, although it should afterwards appear that no felony was intended.  [Emphasis supplied.]

[torbjork]

Someone getting out of their vehicle and directing harsh language in your general direction hardly constitutes an evident "design to destroy your life or commit felony upon your person."

[45_auto]

Pay special attention to a particular clause in that last paragraph that you cited:

there is reasonable ground

You have no control over the makeup of the jury that will decide whether you had "reasonable ground" or not.

If you want to play games with the wording of the law, you probably want to be VERY careful that your interpretation of "reasonable ground" agrees with the jury's (composed of probably 50% non-gun owners and [anti-gun types]) definition.

Good luck!

[green_MTman]

@indierocker

what does who he is or is not have to do with getting the license plate# and calling the police and or campus security

[F. Guffey]

Depends on where witnesses are sitting or standing, there are not many situations a person can imagine I have not been involved in. There was a shooting that was determined to be a good shooting.

The subject same up in a conceal carry class, I ask the instructor if he was there and he responded with no. I then ask him if he would like to talk to someone that was there. There had to be 40+ witnesses that did not wait around for the investigations and cameras. They all had some place to be.

F. Guffey

[spacemanspiff]

When from the nature of the attack, there is reasonable ground to believe that there is a design to destroy his life, or commit any felony upon his person, the killing of the assailant will be excusable homicide, although it should afterwards appear that no felony was intended.

See theres a difference in mindset here. I look for ways to avoid taking someones life. All thru this thread, you have been looking for ways to justify it.

What if you had got out of the vehicle with hands out palms facing the RRguy, and simply said "Hey, we are sorry! We don't know what we did to upset you, but it was NOT intentional. We don't want any trouble."

No, you instead proudly told how you were meeting aggressive behavior with your own aggression. And were quick to tell your friend (who obviously is not a gun carrier, nor probably knows the actual specifics of the laws regarding the use of deadly force in self defense) that you could kill if anyone got within 21 feet of you!

I am reminded of one of MTVs early reality shows True Life: I'm a Gun Owner; which featured a young man that believed he could shoot anyone who 'got up in his face' and 'gave him crap'.

[manta49]

Could a drawn firearm and a verbal warning be appropriate in some circumstances. I don't think you are likely to accidently hit someone and injure them with a verbal warning. Or should you always follow what some are posting, if you draw your firearm use it. Advice I am surprised to see on this forum. Some seem to be saying that it would be easer to justify shooting someone than firing a warning shot, To me that implies if you draw your firearm shoot, it might be easer to justify to the authorities. Again advice I am surprised to read on this forum.

Warning shots have proven time and again to be a terrible idea from both a tactical and a legal standpoint.

I assume numerous examples of were firing a warning shot has being proved on numerous occasions to be a terrible idea.? I would be interested in reading them.

[Brian Pfleuger]

But one example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-mom-...warning-shots/

How many opinions you want?

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/sel...-are-bad-ideas

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-warning-shot/

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/spl4/...nceptions.html

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_...t-caution.html

[.22lr]

Manta49,

The threat of injury or death is "assault" in the United States. Add a knife, bat, gun, etc and it becomes "assault with a deadly weapon". These are felonies. The legal system determines if the above is justified or criminal in nature.

The issue with firing a shot, aimed or warning, is an act of deadly force. Deadly force can ONLY be justified when in *imminent* danger of grievous bodily harm or death. If one has the time to fire a warning shot, then how can the threat of grievous bodily harm or death be imminent?

Also, there exists the practical issue of proving the intent of your shot. To the police you will appear to be guilty of attempted murder (and being incompetent with a firearm).

I am typing this on my cell phone in a passenger van with shocks of dubious quality; I apologize for the typos I may have missed

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by manta49

Could a drawn firearm and a verbal warning be appropriate in some circumstances. I don't think you are likely to accidently hit someone and injure them with a verbal warning. Or should you always follow what some are posting, if you draw your firearm use it.

Once again, you're simply not understanding what we're saying. Nobody is saying that you have to fire your gun if you draw it. What we're saying is that you should never draw your firearm unless you're justified to use it at that moment. Period. But if you draw your weapon and the aggressor stops, of course you shouldn't fire at that point.

Originally Posted by manta49

I assume numerous examples of were firing a warning shot has being proved on numerous occasions to be a terrible idea.? I would be interested in reading them.

Google "warning shot bad idea" to see plenty of expert opinions on the subject. Brian already linked a few of them. And then Google "warning shot arrested" to see plenty of examples of people being arrested for warning shots. Brian posted one example, here are several more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...ring-burglary/

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/le....google.com%2F

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-marion-hammer

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...herine-connell

http://gunsnfreedom.com/another-man-...-with-shotgun/

http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com...-warning-shot/

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/...home-intruder/

I only stopped cutting-and-pasting because I got tired of it, but there are countless more examples. Like I said, it's been proven time and again that warning shots are a terrible idea: Every prominent instructor and self-defense expert advises against it and there are many, many examples of people going to jail for it. How much more evidence do you need?

[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. Warning shot or at a person. Some examples are also contradictory. So to say a warning shot is never a good idea is I think bad advice. As is if you draw your firearm use it. Example someone is walking towards you with a firearm , you draw and point your firearm he drops his. Do you shoot him anyway to justify you brandishing your firearm. 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. Was it justification to use a firearm that was the problem not the fact that they fired a warning shot.

When They Work. Massad Ayoob.

There have certainly been cases where warning shots worked. I had the privilege of knowing the late, great gun writer and career lawman Charles “Skeeter” Skelton. Charlie wrote of a case where he faced a psycho who was terrorizing a store with a large knife. Charlie took the man at gunpoint, and ordered him to drop the blade. The man refused. Skelton then fired a .44 Special bullet from his Smith & Wesson into the wooden floor, between the man’s feet. At that point, the individual instantly “got religion,” dropped the knife, and surrendered without further ado. This, I would submit, is an example of a successful warning shot worthy of being called Case Three

[Theohazard]

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.

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.

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

So you want examples where firing a warning shot DIDN'T get the person in trouble, to prove that they might get a person in trouble?

The whole point is that they're a bad idea. They're a bad idea because they get you in trouble. It's hard to show that they get you in trouble by linking to stories where the shooter DIDN'T get in trouble.

That is but one example, I make no claim as to the guilt or innocence of the person in the story. You want more examples, Google is your friend. We've provided a near a dozen examples and expert opinions.

[manta49]

The whole point is that they're a bad idea. They're a bad idea because they get you in trouble. It's hard to show that they get you in trouble by linking to stories where the shooter DIDN'T get in trouble

Shooting someone that was judged not justified, could get you as much trouble or more than firing a warning shot that was not justified. I don't think matters whether you shoot someone , fire a warning shot , or brandishing a firearm it justifying it that is the issue. I assume the advice applies to all states, as the ones posting no warning shot seem to be applying it to all states.

Warning Shot" Bill passed today in Florida

The "Warning Shot" Bill official known as Justifiable Defensive Threat of Force Signed in to Law by Gov. Rick Scott today 6/20/14.

House Bill 89 by Representatives Combee (R) and Edwards (D) in the Florida House, and Senator Evers (R) in the Florida Senate, was signed in to law today by Governor Scott. The new law clarifies that a person may threaten the use of defensive force in order to prevent or terminate an imminent or actual unlawful physical attack or commission of a forcible felony by an aggressor.

The new law is designed to stop prosecutors from charging people who defend themselves and their families from criminal attackers with a crime, provide for having the criminal records of people who are wrongfully accused of aggravated assault for an act if self-defense expunged, and prevent the use of 10-20-Life against people who act in self-defense.

In plain English, if you are imminent threat of physical attack or the intended victim of a forcible felony, you can discharge your firearm as an intimidating threat to deter the impending crime

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

Are you saying that Massad Ayoob is stupid for saying they work sometimes. ?

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by manta49

So to say a warning shot is never a good idea is I think bad advice.

No, I think you're giving bad advice in advising people to shoot warning shots. Not just that, but I think you're giving irresponsible and negligent advice as well; many new shooters come here to learn, and the last thing we want to do is advise people to do something as stupid as fire a warning shot.

In my experience, new gun owners who ask about firing warning shots just want to scare people away without ever having to shoot anyone. Well, here's a news flash: Gun are deadly weapons. If you don't want to use a deadly weapon, then don't use one.

"Never" is a strong word. Someone with a good imagination can always come up with some extremely unlikely exception. That said, I can't think of a single situation where I would ever contemplate firing a warning shot. If I feel justified in firing my weapon, that means I'm going to actually fire at the person attacking me. Period. Gun aren't non-lethal weapons. If you want a non-lethal weapon for times when deadly force isn't justified, then get some pepper spray or a Taser.

Originally Posted by manta49

if you draw your firearm use it [is bad advice].

I agree. But that's a straw man argument. I'm not saying, "If you draw your firearm, use it"; I'm saying, "Don't draw your firearm unless you're justified in using it." There's a HUGE difference in those two statements.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by manta49

Shooting some that was judged not justified, could get you as much trouble or more than firing a warning shot that was not justified. I don't think matters whether you shoot someone , fire a warning shot , or brandishing a firearm it justifying it that is the issue. I assume the advice applies to all states, as the ones posting no warning shot seem to be applying it to all states.

Manta49, you're still not understanding what I'm saying. I really wish there was a "banging your head against the wall" emoticon here like there are on some other forums...

OK, I'll try YET AGAIN to explain this; I thought I already explained this in posts #65, 67, and 89; and .22lr explained it in post #86. But obviously our explanations aren't working. But here goes again:

Simply the act of firing a warning shot can make a justified shooting appear to be unjustified (or it can just give more evidence against you to prove that an unjustified shooting was unjustified). When examining a shooting, the authorities try to determine whether the shooter truly felt his life was in danger. Unless they have a video of the shooting, all they can use is more indirect evidence. And the fact that warning shots were fired can give evidence that the shooting wasn't justified (even if it was). After all, why would you shoot a warning shot if your life was in danger at that moment and you needed to stop your attacker?

Add in the negligent, stray-bullet aspect of firing a warning shot, and it should be pretty clear why it's such a bad idea.

Originally Posted by manta49

Are you saying that Massad Ayoob is stupid for saying they work sometimes. ?

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Of course they work sometimes! Lots of dumb things work sometimes! We've all done dumb things that worked out and didn't get us into trouble, but that doesn't mean they weren't dumb. And Massad Ayoob says that warning shots are a bad idea.

Manta49, if you're going to resort to ridiculous straw man arguments, then there's really no point in trying to talk to you anymore.

[pax]

Closed -- because this is just going in circles now.

pax

Nothing as mundane as mere evidence can be allowed to threaten a vision so deeply satisfying. – Thomas Sowell