To warn or not to warn? That is the question.

[Sharkbite]

If a man with a knife is heading into a room in which a loved one is, it won't matter whereto you shoot him in the back or the from or the side or the top of the head from above.

EXACTLY... The angle of the shot is not relevant IF the shot itself is justified.

The old adage of not shooting someone in the back is Nonsense. If im forced to shoot someone that is standing with their back to me because they are attacking my wife.. Thats the shot i have...thats the shot i'll take.

I may move a bit to attempt to alter angles a little, so as to minimize over penetration issues, but if thats the only angle presented...so be it.

[g.willikers]

It's kind of surprising that target manufacturers haven't come up with tactical targets that represent more kinds of varied views, in addition to the typical frontal ones.

[FireForged]

a situation either warrants deadly force[ right now] or it doesnt.. If my gun is drawn, I am not really concerned with anything outside of that consideration.

[turkeestalker]

Whatever gave you that idea?

I took my CCW class back in '08. I voted for the right to carry in '03 when it passed here in Missouri. I liked the idea of having the right to get one if I chose to, but wasn't really interested in actually getting one. I had a friend who nagged me like an unhappy wife to do it with him, but I wouldn't budge. I'd been near 40 years without having to use a firearm to defend myself, why would I start now, besides.. I really DON'T want to have to shoot someone.

He persisted to the point that he set up a private class with a LEO that we both knew, for just his father, himself, and me, at a greatly reduced fee. I conceded, initially with no intent of actually carrying.

The LEO that taught the class for us stated that according to Missouri's version of the Castle Law that they had adopted at that time, an individual was required to announce his intent to use deadly force or the act could and would be deemed unjustified and most likely bring criminal charges.

Like I said,

I'm not certain, but that may have changed by now.

.
Missouri has changed the rules quite a bit pertaining to CCW license holders since '08, I think most for the better, but again I'm not certain if THAT has changed.
I know that when I paid for Tammy to take hers last Christmas and sat in on it with her, the gentleman teaching the class did not spell that out, nor did I think to ask.
Bottom line is that if I feel the need to I will most certainly do so because that is what I was taught in my CCW class. However circumstances could carry the necessity to do otherwise regardless of what I was taught.

Won't know until I'm in it though I hope I never am.

[OldMarksman]

The LEO that taught the class for us stated that according to Missouri's version of the Castle Law that they had adopted at that time, an individual was required to announce his intent to use deadly force or the act could and would be deemed unjustified and most likely bring criminal charges.

He was wrong.

My CCW instructor helped write the law. [ Edited for correction--he helped frame the shall issue CCW law, and explained the nuances of the defense of justification law. Momentary spasm of brain cells?]


There was nothing to that effect in it, and no appellate rulings that said so.

[OldMarksman]

a situation either warrants deadly force[ right now] or it doesnt..

True, and the only determinant is immediate necessity.

If my gun is drawn, I am not really concerned with anything outside of that consideration.

Good--and that should be the thought if you are thinking of drawing it, in all but a few states.

[turkeestalker]

He was wrong.

My CCW helped write the law. There was nothing to that effect in it, and no appellate rulings that said so.

Ok, I did say that it seemed silly in my original post.
But bottom line is that if I feel the need to I will most certainly do so because that is what I was taught in my CCW class. However circumstances could carry the necessity to do otherwise regardless of what I was taught.

Edit by staff: See my edit of my post correcting my statement.

Comment on the Castle Doctrine does stand.

[turkeestalker]

I wasn't offended at all, just reiterating what I had said. I believe you when you say that he was wrong, we all are sometimes and perhaps me more than my share!
Still, some situations I think would call for it as other's have posted, some wouldn't. I just hope that I never find myself in either.

[Boogershooter]

I'm sure every state has different laws and often these laws change but a very good friend of mine was at home asleep during the day. He works nights at a plywood mill. His wife was at work and his kids in school. 2 ARMED men broke into his house. He woke up and naturally grabbed his gun. He shot the first man in the leg and chest and as the second one turned he shot him in the lower back. The one shot from the front somehow lived but the other died before he made it to the hospital. The judge ruled that the attacker was turning to flee and therefore my friend was charged with a number of charges. He only did 5 years but that's 5 years without seeing his kids everyday. I know some of you are gona think I'm lieing and say all kinds of stuff so go ahead and I hope I never have to say I told you so. Im not speaking on what I think I'm speaking of what I know for fact.

[A pause for the COZ]

I'm sure every state has different laws and often these laws change but a very good friend of mine was at home asleep during the day. He works nights at a plywood mill. His wife was at work and his kids in school. 2 ARMED men broke into his house. He woke up and naturally grabbed his gun. He shot the first man in the leg and chest and as the second one turned he shot him in the lower back. The one shot from the front somehow lived but the other died before he made it to the hospital. The judge ruled that the attacker was turning to flee and therefore my friend was charged with a number of charges. He only did 5 years but that's 5 years without seeing his kids everyday. I know some of you are gona think I'm lieing and say all kinds of stuff so go ahead and I hope I never have to say I told you so. Im not speaking on what I think I'm speaking of what I know for fact.

Sounds like he needed a better Lawyer. Rule#1 in my book, If involved in an event. Rent the best you can find, And keep your mouth shut.
Think what the prosecution had to prove.
If as you stated the perps started the event as a threat to the home owner.
#1 That the perp was in fact running away.
#2 That the person who shot him knew thats what he was doing and shot him any way.


So he must have opened his mouth and told the cops that on site.
I hope, if it was me. I would have been scared for my life and I cant exactly remember what direction he was facing. trying to discipher what his intention was other than meaning me harm is beyond my ability.( or some other Lawyer advised statement to that effect.)

Using a fire arm to defend your self is in fact a life changing event. Must be treated as such before ever doing it. And treated as such after.
Even if you win, Your life will be changed.
Fair deal in this guys case. Five years for his life??? maybe.

[NateKirk]

A dead man tells no tale.

Tell that to a medical examiner.

It depends on the situation of course, but unless the situation is something that you are fully aware of and have no doubts about what is going on or the targets intentions then I would give a warning while still being prepared to fire.

Also I don't buy the theory that you can only process one thing at a time during a stressful situation. People's immediate reactions encompass a number of things that occur simultaneously (run, scream, throw things, draw gun, etc.) I think if humans have the multitasking ability to play guitar and harmonica at the same time then they can be trained to yell "stop" as they draw their weapon and acquire their target.

[Boogershooter]

The whole parish was outraged when it happened. The charges were such bullspit it was an embarrassment to hard working people but when the media gets involved things like this can happen. They did a background check on him and he had said a couple unpleasant things on facebook about a member of the community that had just gotten out of jail that was of a different race. So when 2 men broke into his house it was his fault because of a few comments about a drug dealer. This whole matter should have never went to court. But appearantly if your wife and kids aren't home you don't have the right to defend yourself or your property. The D A wasn't reelected but the judge was.

[A pause for the COZ]

They did a background check on him and he had said a couple unpleasant things on facebook about a member of the community that had just gotten out of jail that was of a different race.

Thats also a rule of mine. Face book is bad juju. I only use it to share dog photos and family vacation photos.
I try to never make any comments on Facebook that in any way could be construed as provocative.
Its like the main spy site for people to find out things about you and make allot of bad opinions.
When I heard my Company was checking employees face book pages to make sure no one was bad mouthing the company. I decided it was a good place to stay away from.

[Fla_dogman]

Don't underestimate the element of surprise, it could mean the difference between life and death. First punch usually wins the fight

[Kosh75287]

If they make a fast escape without threatening me--it's not ideal, but I'll call it a win. Essentially, if there is no threat/harm to me, I'd rather not initiate any violence.

If they're in your home without your knowledge or invitation, they've ALREADY done violence to you, and demonstrated that there is no boundary they will not violate to obtain what they want. You DO NOT have the luxury of trying nor even contemplating whether you can hold them until the police arrive. If they escape, perhaps it's a win FOR YOU. But may you never meet their next victim(s).

As for warnings, if they are not to my advantage (and they seldom are) I'M not issuing one. If my yelling at someone momentarily distracts them from victimizing someone else while not compromising my situation, that's another matter. But generally, I'm of the opinion that the best "warning" is a perfectly executed Mozambique stroke.

Quit trying to fight fair, folks. Your aggressor already has. You won't get extra points in the next life for it, and a lotta very upset people who you leave behind in THIS life will go to their graves, wishing you'd been just a little more ruthless.

One LAST thing: DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE UNLESS YOUR ATTORNEY IS PRESENT AND OKAY WITH IT!

[Rob228]

The situation is going to dictate it for me. If I'm justified legally with no warning it doesn't mean that my conscious is going to be clean if I could have given a warning with no further risk to my life.

[hartcreek]

This question comes up here every few months and the comments so far are typical in that they are either second hand or from individuals that have never had to even pull their weapon.

I have had to draw down three times two of which I have talked about here before.

One situation I had children with me and two individuals decided to enter the family cabin. I was cooking dinner and had my .38 derringer in my shirt pocket. I was only a few feet from the door and heard a step in the porch so I was able to catch the lead individual with my derringer under his chin with the hammer pulled back. The words I said to him can not be written here but I am reasonably sure that he pooped in his pants.

The other time that I will talk about I was down at the local hardware store with my 61 Studebaker truck packed up for a trip to the cabin. I was just leaving the store and some individual was messing with my truck. The individual had not opened up the locked truck door yet so I drawed my weapon and ordered him away from my truck. I had more weapons locked up in the cab so had he managed to get the door open I would not have yelled but shot instead as he would then have access to my 624 and I just had my Davis .38 derringer in my shirt pocket.

Each use of force situation is different so what one does in one situation will of necessity be different.

[Sharkbite]

and as the second one turned he shot him in the lower back. The one shot from the front somehow lived but the other died before he made it to the hospital. The judge ruled that the attacker was turning to flee

Uhhh yeah.. See my post above.

If the shooting is justified the shot placement is not relevant. If the shooting is not justified then placement can be a problem.

If someone has their back to me and is stabbing my wife, shooting them in the back is fine.

If they are running away cause i presented my gun and i shoot them in the back...not so much.

Its about the justification to shoot not the shot placement

[A pause for the COZ]

Because thats were the high power light is.

Then, for heaven's sake, get another light.

Nope!! Not gona do it. This is the most effective combo I have ever used.
That light is just too good. Will turn night into day.
They wont know I have a gun on them unless I tell them or have to use it.
The light is too bright for them to see me at all.
I found just carrying a flash light. I never felt proficient being able to light and shoot at the same time. I am a two handed shooter. This just fits how I can be most effective.

Now I may add a hand held tactical light and drop it if I need to draw.
Seems like that is extra work.
But Having tromped around my sheds with a gun drawn kinda sucks too.
So may still be a work in progress.

[Kosh75287]

In others, however, you would have to also have a reason for believing that they had entered forcibly.

Do you mean like traversing a closed and padlocked gate/fence before getting to the front or back door, then defeating the doorknob, deadbolt and chain on one or both of those, or doing battle with a VERY aggressive holly bush before bashing in a double-pane window through which to gain ingress? Would that constitute a reason for believing they had entered forcibly?

If I didn't or haven't let them in, or given them the keys with which to do so themselves, then short of access to a working Star Trek transporter, I don't know how they've made it inside my residence UNforcibly.

Some people may be okay with making it easier, but I'm not among them. If the only for an intruder to gain entry to my residence is by violent physical force, I dare say I'm safe by the "reasonable man test" in presuming that he's not yet had his fill of doing violence, and has no hesitation about continuing his mission.

As Frank Ettin and others have been so quick to remind me, I'm not an attorney. But neither am I without access to them. Where I live, I AM still justified in using lethal force to defend my property. I'm betting that an intruder in my house will be reasonably regarded as having arrived there only through unlawful and forcible means, and is a threat to more than mere possessions.

...Unless their name is Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, etc...or maybe SANTA CLAUS, but to get down MY chimney, he'd have to be a shape-shifter, so I'm thinkin' not....

[gyvel]

This is another can of worms.

Each situation is going to be unique and you have the unenviable task of analyzing the situation in literally a split second's time.

I have mentioned in several threads on this forum that I have had to draw 3 times in roughly 45 years, and each time the situation was quickly defused.

However, given a situation where you or someone else is about to be shot, stabbed or what have you, I think it's insane to yell anything. You just take your shot without thinking about it. It's that simple.

Yelling a warning is only going to work on a "reasonable" person, and I am of the opinion that anyone threatening violence/death on another person, or on PCP, etc. is not "reasonable."

[Double Naught Spy]

I have been to several different schools with different instructors with different backgrounds. My take from all of them is this. Given that you are about to engage a suspect with lethal force, the threshhold of eminence of peril has been crossed and you have determined that the bad guy needs to be stopped and needs to be stopped NOW. Yelling STOP STOP STOP or whatever other verbiage does nothing to help you put bullets on target and may, in fact, put you at a significant tactical disadvantage by drawing attention to yourself (assuming you are not already the intended victim) before you have a chance to fire.

If you are in your home and dealing with an identified intruder, I see where giving yourself away can be a very bad idea.

Where it may come in handy in regard to the current problem you are trying to solve is by garnering attention from others in public from whom you may feel you do or will need immediate help.

I have heard the lectures how yelling STOP STOP STOP or other such phrases is supposed to aid you legally for the after shooting analysis, drawing witness attention before you fire, demonstrating that you acted with all due prudence and only fired after you had determined lethal force needed to be applied, yaddy yaddy yaddy lawyer-speak. Logically, this makes sense.

However, one instructor gave us two examples of which he was aware of situations where the witnesses were confused. Witness confusion is a very real and salient issue. In the two cases, the witnesses thought the actual bad guy was yelling STOP STOP STOP and that the actual good guy was the aggressor bad guy. Basically, the yelling of STOP STOP STOP is what drew their attention (as intended), but because they were not already witnessing the situation, they did not understand the events they were seeing and misidentified who was the bad guy.

So the point here was that you can't count on witnesses to get the information correct.

Bottom line? Yell warnings when you think it is to your tactical advantage to resolve a lethal force situation. That is the Number 1 goal at that moment and undoubtedly you are firing to save a life and saving a life is what matters most. If it does not benefit you and/or the intended invictim(s) in saving lives, then don't do it. If you are doing it to try to protect yourself from legal consequences after-the-fact, that is nice, but not if it ends up costing you your life because it put you at a tactical disadvantage, then the notion is stupid. Additionally, witnesses cannot be counted on providing an accurate assessment of what happened.

[zincwarrior]

If they are engaging myself or a loved one with malice, no verbal warning.

If they are engaging in acts of theft of property, verbal warning to stand down will be given.

If they are engaging in acts of armed robbery, no verbal warning.

Warnings are situational. Public is an excellent example of that.
How do you know its a threat in public until its actually occurring? Or to be more clear, someone comes up to you looking suspicious. Is he a thief? Is he a panhandler? Is he a potential kidnapper?

The warning is to keep them back to avoid having to draw in the first place in a situation where thats potentially a very bad idea.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Kosh75287:

If they're in your home without your knowledge or invitation, they've ALREADY done violence to you,...

You cannot lawfully punish someone for that they may have done. The issue is whether you have a basis for a reasonable belief that it is immediately necessary to act to prevent something from happening.

....and demonstrated that there is no boundary they will not violate to obtain what they want.

That may or may not be true, depending upon who they are and why they are there.

In all state,s the resident is given a presumption that unlawful entry constitutes an imminent threat of serious harm, thought the conditions vary somewhat. But as in the case of all such presumptions, it is rebuttable.

Should the evidence (forensic, earwitness, the testimony of the persons who were in your home) indicate otherwise (and the burden of proof for civil litigation differs from that for criminal prosecution), the use of deadly force would not be lawfully justified.

You DO NOT have the luxury of trying nor even contemplating whether you can hold them until the police arrive.

I would never even consider trying to detain someone.

If they escape, perhaps it's a win FOR YOU.

It is.

But may you never meet their next victim(s).

That has nothing whatsoever to do with justifying the use of force.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by A pause for the COZ:

Nope!! Not gona do it. This is the most effective combo I have ever used.
That light is just too good. Will turn night into day.

There have been extensive discussions of the pros and cons of weapon mounted lights here, and they are beyond the scope of this thread.

They wont know I have a gun on them unless I tell them or have to use it.
The light is too bright for them to see me at all.

Personally, I would never risk committing a crime because I believed that the likelihood that it will become known is low.

I found just carrying a flash light. I never felt proficient being able to light and shoot at the same time. I am a two handed shooter. This just fits how I can be most effective.

Look for some videos and try it.

Now I may add a hand held tactical light and drop it if I need to draw.
Seems like that is extra work.

Hardly a reason for taking a such risk.

But Having tromped around my sheds with a gun drawn kinda sucks too.

It sure does! It is a BAD idea.

You do not want to expose your firearm unless you have reason to believe that you may have to use it, and you do NOT want to point it at anyone unless you have a reason to believe that force (deadly force, in most states, including Minnesota) is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

The evidence you will need for for justification is a lot lower inside your home than it is "around your sheds" or "around the homestead".

"Investigating something suspicious" outdoors does not meet the test.

Those are just the legal reasons. One really should consider the possibility that someone, good or bad, who sees you walking around at night with a gun in hand just might shoot you.