The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 7, 2010, 05:59 PM   #1
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
That Ain't Right

I thought I had it bad here in Kalifornia http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/...me-with-ak-47/
jmortimer is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:04 PM   #2
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeowner
And so I fired four warning shots into the grass
There is another thread in Tactics & Training about a situation similar to this.

Warning shots are never, ever a good idea.

This is interesting:

Quote:
Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes.
...
That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet.
Never heard of this. Anyone live somewhere where it is used?
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:13 PM   #3
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
Is it ****ty? YES. But as Sefner said, warning shots are NEVER NEVER NEVER a good idea. He should have back up went in his house and had the gang attempted to attack or get in his house, BAM open fire with the law on your side. BTW is he allowed to own an AK???
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:14 PM   #4
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
also Jmort, what city are you in, im RivCo too
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:15 PM   #5
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Easy to critique but when you are facing a small army of thugs it does not seem unreasonable.
jmortimer is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:21 PM   #6
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Close the door, go inside, and take your position. End of story. I hope he gets off, I bet he does, even in NY.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:45 PM   #7
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Article states that the AK is lawfully owned. I imagine it's semi-auto like 99% of them out there.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 06:48 PM   #8
nbrown
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2010
Location: Mass
Posts: 22
i think it's rediculous you can have 20+ people come on YOUR property and threaten the lives of your family and yourself, and for protecting your family you go to jail. I would think if you were facing a mob of that size anyways with everyone shouting they were going to kill you and your family, you would have the right to use lethal force, right? I mean if there saying there going to, and with 20+ vs. 1 they clearly have the ability, how would you not be justified?
nbrown is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 07:28 PM   #9
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,905
To Sefner, Hope I understood your question correctly. I just read in the Montgomery Advertiser (Montgomery, Alabama) where they are acquiring their second ShotSpotter -

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...ID=20109040326

I gathered from the article, they are pleased with the one system they have deployed in one of the bad neighborhoods. It has reportedly reduced the number of gunshots fired dramatically. In July 2009 they had 176 shots in the targeted neighborhood. This past August 2010, they reported only 43 shots fired. I bet there are some bad places in the USA where either number would be very low.

Cost is $200,000.00 per system.
lamarw is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 07:43 PM   #10
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
lamarw,

You understood correctly, I was interested in reports from other localities where the system is used.

Do you have any more information on how the system operates? Is it constantly recording? If so, what civil rights issues (if any) has that raised amongst residents? I would imagine that it passively monitors ambient and looking for a signature that sounds something like a gunshot, but I'm not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nbrown
i think it's rediculous you can have 20+ people come on YOUR property and threaten the lives of your family and yourself, and for protecting your family you go to jail. I would think if you were facing a mob of that size anyways with everyone shouting they were going to kill you and your family, you would have the right to use lethal force, right? I mean if there saying there going to, and with 20+ vs. 1 they clearly have the ability, how would you not be justified?
The argument is mildly complex. The first assumption is that any use of a firearm is considered lethal force because it could result in lethal injury to a person. The second is that if one had the time opportunity and capacity to fire a warning shot that they were not truly in mortal danger or harm's way. Thus, the argument goes, lethal force (the warning shot) was used even though the shooter was not in danger that would justify lethal force.

I hope that makes sense. To many people in the self defense business, people on this board (myself included), and police, this argument is very compelling. Not perfect by any means (in logical reasoning and in premise validity) but very compelling.

Now here is why it's not perfect: In this situation, the gang fulfilling the three "sides" of the "threat triangle" (excuse the quotes, I despise metaphors in communication):

Ability: There are 20 of them, all young and fit, possibly armed.
Intent: Verbal threats, and subjects have a history of violence (gangs), and the house has been purposefully compromised (from the article it sounds like the surrounded it, even sneaking up on the homeowner from a corner of the house)
Opportunity: They have surrounded the house from the outside, outnumber the homeowner, and are again possibly armed.

Thus, by the measurement of the commonly used "threat triangle", lethal force was justified. The problem is that the homeowner, by his actions, made it apparent that he himself did not feel threatened enough to use lethal force even though he, by the first assumption of why warning shots are bad, did actually use lethal force. This odd contradiction is why the warning shot argument is imperfect.

Again, I hope I'm making sense here. Apologies if I'm not.

My speculation is that had he actually shot someone (namely the person closest to his house or the people who came around the corner of the house) that he would not have been charged with any crime. But this is speculation.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner

Last edited by Sefner; September 7, 2010 at 07:55 PM. Reason: content
Sefner is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 07:54 PM   #11
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
With the disparity of force it sounds like if he shot one or more of them that it would have been justified, and yet the good man still found a way to end it without bloodshed. That's very commendable and yet will be punished most likely, There's something not right about that.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 07:55 PM   #12
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Assuming the facts are as reported, I wish the homeowner luck. However, I'm wondering why he decided to go outside with an AK47? If you've got multiple guys coming after you and threatening to kill you, I would think that being inside the house would provide you with a much better defensive advantage.

In addition to the defensive advantage, it would help you legally as well. In many states, the mere act of breaking and entering a home is enough to create a presumption of reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Not sure about NY where this happened; but in most other states, this would go a long ways towards avoiding the legal debate over whether his warning shots were reasonable.

I applaud people who will stand up and do the right thing; but it pays to do it as smart as possible.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 07:56 PM   #13
THEZACHARIAS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 537
Agree that warning shots are not a good idea, but the shotspotter system in the area adds another legal dimension. A lawyer would argue that when the second group of gang bangers joined in, it escalated the situation and by activating the gunshot tracker system, he was signaling to the cops for help in the fastest way possible (tracking system + gun shot = cops enroute NOW). The argument could be made that he was not intending harm, only trying to instill a sense of urgency in law enforcement.

Anyhoo, devils advocate time over . Gotta agree again with the no warning shots. There where better options available.
THEZACHARIAS is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 07:59 PM   #14
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
However, I'm wondering why he decided to go outside with an AK47? If you've got multiple guys coming after you and threatening to kill you, I would think that being inside the house would provide you with a much better defensive advantage.
This support for the idea that if you fire a warning shot, you did not feel that you were in enough danger to use lethal force and thus should not have discharged your firearm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THEZACHARIAS
Agree that warning shots are not a good idea, but the shotspotter system in the area adds another legal dimension. A lawyer would argue that when the second group of gang bangers joined in, it escalated the situation and by activating the gunshot tracker system, he was signaling to the cops for help in the fastest way possible (tracking system + gun shot = cops enroute NOW). The argument could be made that he was not intending harm, only trying to instill a sense of urgency in law enforcement.
This is a very interesting and insightful comment. Unfortunately, because the guy already talked to police and said he fired it as a "warning shot" he looses some legal ground in this aspect. But I do like how you look at it. Never even thought the system might be used that way. I wish we all had a button we could press that would summon the police to use
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 09:38 PM   #15
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 338
If the po-po can respond to the "shotspotter" "within minutes", why didn't they respond to his wife's phone call in the same length of time? Makes the article sound like an ad or propaganda piece for Shotspotter.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 09:49 PM   #16
nbrown
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2010
Location: Mass
Posts: 22
Sefner- i understand how firing a warning shot is considered using lethal force and how it would make it seem to a jury that he wasn't afraid for his life. I think though that he did it in a safe enough way (shooting into the lawn), (i don't think warning shots are a good idea btw), and if he resolved it by doing that instead of killing someone, i would think he should have been given a pat on the back, not put in jail. I understand how thats not the way the laws are though. Too bad we don't have common sense laws
nbrown is offline  
Old September 7, 2010, 10:43 PM   #17
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,905
Well, I am just happy I was able to answer you initial question. I doubt I will be of much help with your follow-on questions. I am not familiar with the technology, but I doubt it is as sophisticated as the Army's Firefinder technology which is more than a decade old (actually a couple of decades).

I doubt the ShotSpotter would violate anyone's civil liberties. It is far less aggressive than cameras. I am sure the sensors are placed in public locals. As another comparison, we all know law enforcement has resently be allowed by the courts to use GPS bugs on private vehicles to track suspects.

By the way, I am about 45 miles from Montgomery. My residents is in the sticks and on a huge lake. Dove season just opened and Deer season is coming up. A ShotSpotter would go nuts in my AO. The only laws you have to follow are the hunting regulations and not hunting within a 100 yards of a building or improved road. LOL The worse crimes around here are rednecks using roads signs for zeroing-in their hunting gun.
lamarw is offline  
Old September 9, 2010, 10:11 AM   #18
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
Another incident that indicates that training is a good thing for the armed citizen. What might seem reasonable, warning shots, are frought with difficulty.

I recall a story of a coin dealer. He gets held up. Pulls a gun. BG flees. Dealer chases him and runs up to the BG's car and shoots up the tire.

Dealer gets arrested.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old September 9, 2010, 01:15 PM   #19
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,905
Did the perp get arrested? What was the violation by the coin dealer? For example - Was he a felon with a gun? (citing the worst case senario). It is hard to judge without all the facts. This is why we have Judges and Juries.
lamarw is offline  
Old September 9, 2010, 01:36 PM   #20
thesheepdog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 1,996
Poor guy.

Yeah not a good idead to shoot until an iminent threat i detected.
__________________
Krav Maga/Judo
Qualified Rifleman/Marksmanship Instructor/Lic. Medic
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" Romans 8:1
thesheepdog is offline  
Old September 9, 2010, 04:04 PM   #21
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 497
He should have argued that they were charging him and his "warning shots" were just misses.

But I used to live on LI and I can tell you that Uniondale (where it occured) is not the best of places. Lots of gangs and crime all around. So I do feel bad that he got arrested for protecting his family, but warning shots were not the way to go. But does NY have a Castle Law (I think that is what it is called), where he should have just went into his house and waited for them to enter.
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11
cannonfire is offline  
Old September 10, 2010, 02:50 AM   #22
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,905
But, Who wants to bring or lure the fight into your castle (home) where your family is at? Your family members are the ones you want to protect and keep the bad guys away from.

It sounds like this was the correct area for a ShotSpotter device.
lamarw is offline  
Old September 10, 2010, 09:11 AM   #23
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
But, Who wants to bring or lure the fight into your castle (home) where your family is at?
Is your family better served by you walking out on to the front porch (leaving the "gate" of said "castle" open) with a firearm to confront 20 possible gang members? How likely is that action to result in your family being murdered with the firearm that was supposed to defend them?

Being inside the house offers concealment and probably some degree of cover as well. It funnels the attackers into certain areas - and even in New York, it eliminates a lot of the legal guess work for the cops about who the bad guy was.

Apparently the shooter gave an interview and said that his cousin was in an altercation with some of the gang members on the lawn and was surrounded, which is why he went outside with the rifle. I imagine there is a lot more going on here than what was reported in the news; but that would certainly complicate any defensive strategy.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 10, 2010, 09:14 PM   #24
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,840
Closed. Drive by.

Posting a link is good. Posting only a link or a link with a fragment of a thought, is not.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11347 seconds with 7 queries