From NukeCop:
Quote:
|
So who thinks a warning shot is a good/necessary thing to do? Any LEO's/CCW permit holder wanna weigh in on this?
|
First, as has been discussed, the answer is likely to be very different for a U. S serviceman on a CONUS or foreign base than for a person in a personal defense situation within or outside of the home.
Second, it is very likely that only some CCW holders are really qualified to offer a really meaningful opinion: primarily, those who are attorneys, and even then, probably only for their states or municipal areas.
As previously stated there's probably no single answer.
But: two themes in the replies so far seem rather persuasive to me:
- There is great potential liability inherent in the obvious risk of hitting someone. Massad Ayoob provides some real examples in a couple of his books.
- The shot or shots deplete your resources.
In my CCW class, we were advised very strongly to never fire a warning shot--"you either have to use deadly force or you do not." I would suspect that where I live firing a warning shot would constitute the illegal discharge of a firearm, but I'm not sure about that.
There was a case in New Mexico some years ago where a person intended to fire a warning shot and hit an assailant. The prosecution claimed that because the hit was not intentional, she was not entitled to a self defense claim, and she was convicted of negligent homicide. The case was, as I understand it, overturned on appeal, and the defendant was granted a new trial. I do not know the ouctome.
In my lay opinion it may be more risky to fire a warning shot than to wait until deadly force cannot reasonably be avoided and to apply it accordingly.
However, that is worth just what you paid for it.
Would any of the qualified attorneys on the forum care to contribute?