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

[101combatvet]

One advantage might have to do with eyewitness testimony. If you are threatened and have to shoot someone, it is very likely that eyewitnesses will see you with the gun and will see nothing about what the other person had done. Your shouting of a warning could draw the attention of eyewitnesses to the attacker.

It certainly wouldn't be of any use if no one else was around. Hence the word "liability" in my first post.

[OldMarksman]

It certainly wouldn't be of any use if no one else was around.

it could serve to dissuade.

[101combatvet]

it could serve to dissuade.

It could, but brandishing a firearm works better.

[Panfisher]

For me it would entirely depend on the circumstances. If said bad guy has already commenced hostilities, shooting etc. then I can't imagine any warning given. If it appears the bg might back down or is completely out of position to engage me, I will give them the chance, would prefer not to kill them if I have any choice. No set rules that I can see.

[Ton]

If somebody who was obviously not invited is inside of my residence, the several important factors which justify lethal force are already in play, according my state statues.

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

I do acknowledge that people who have a very distorted sense of reality due to mental illness or intoxication can wander into the wrong home. That said, I keep my home secure and the likelihood of that happening is slim to none. Anybody I encounter inside of the privacy of my own walls uninvited is going to be met with either the threat or use of deadly physical force. If the former causes them to comply or to flee, so be it. If it doesn't, it's gonna be a really bad day for both of us.

Everybody has to draw their own lines in the sand. When those lines are crossed, reactions should be instinctual. My lines are drawn based on the knowledge and experience I have.

[sliponby]

"Everybody has to draw their own lines in the sand. When those lines are crossed, reactions should be instinctual. My lines are drawn based on the knowledge and experience I have."

^^^I believe this pretty much sums up the reasoning of the instructor who wanted no verbal warning. When that proverbial "line in the sand" is crossed - it's time to act, and all your mental faculties should be concentrated on getting your weapon out and stopping the threat rather than yelling something at them...

[9x45]

A civilian, unlike LEO, has no requirement to go up the use of force ladder, ie, verbal, less than lethal, then lethal. You can go from "in fear of life" to bang. There is no need to say anything before shooting.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 9x45:

A civilian, unlike LEO, has no requirement to go up the use of force ladder, ie, verbal, less than lethal, then lethal.

On the other hand, the civilian has no sworn duty to uphold the law, or to pursue or apprehend anyone.

In many jurisdictions, it would be unlawful to use force to attempt to do so.

You can go from "in fear of life" to bang.

Not exactly. It's reasonable fear or belief, not trepidation. It requires that all of the conditions pertaining to the lawful use of force--ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion--be met.


And the civilian, like the LEO, may us no more force than is necessary.

There is no need to say anything before shooting.

True, but it may be a very good idea.

[Sharkbite]

A civilian, unlike LEO, has no requirement to go up the use of force ladder, ie, verbal, less than lethal, then lethal. You can go from "in fear of life" to bang. There is no need to say anything before shooting.

There is a common misconception that a LEO has to "climb the ladder" in the use of force scale. That is simply NOT true.

The LEO (much like anyone) can immediately use whatever force is APPROPRIATE to the situation. There is no need to attempt to use empty hand control holds against a person armed with a knife...nor to give ANY verbal commands to a person threatening you or anyone with a gun. Although, most agencies today are teaching to shout "GUN" as you draw and shoot during qualification and training.

I teach the "use of force" scale as an elevator...Not a ladder. A ladder must be climbed one rung at a time. An elevator goes directly to the level needed.

[JERRYS.]

if you are on the street and you see the threat in a "reasonable" time..... yelling drop the weapon as you line up your sights can help you in court if it ever comes to that. of course if you are being attacked, you draw and fire.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Sharkbite:

I teach the "use of force" scale as an elevator...Not a ladder. A ladder must be climbed one rung at a time. An elevator goes directly to the level needed.

That's a good way to look at it.

[9x45]

Sharkbite, I never said LEO had to go one rung at a time, but rather that the ladder simply doesn't exist for non LEO. Of course ability, opportunity and motive must still be present. And yes it may be a good idea to yell stop, stop, stop, but it is not required. The problem in CA is that even in a clean shooting you can still be dragged into civil court, unlike other states.

These is a similar thread going on at GlockTalk, I though post #36 was interesting


http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/tri...#post-22758404

[Sharkbite]

In the strictest sence, it does apply to Non-LEO's. Only the level of force needed to defend yourself may be used.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 9x45:

The problem in CA is that even in a clean shooting you can still be dragged into civil court, unlike other states.

You can be "dragged into civil court" anywhere.

In a number of states, if you are able to present enough evidence (preponderance of the evidence standard) to convince the court that your action had been lawfully justified, the court will make you immune from civil liability--any suit would be dismissed.

In a very few, your expenses may be reimbursed....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

clean shooting

The problem with the concept of a 'good shoot' (this is commonly heard on the Internet) is that there is not a mathematical proof of a good shoot. It is always a consensus of those involved in evaluating such.

One's opinion and the jury's might vary.

[Mannlicher]

if the situation has devolved to where your life is at stake, I'd say you just don't have time to yell out warnings. If the situation calls for deadly force, discussoin and negotiations are already over.
In other words, as a Citizen, I don't seen any use for warnings.

[Hawg]

If you intend to shoot then shoot, don't talk.

[Deaf Smith]

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

Warn when you can, shoot if you must.

Simple no?

Deaf

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You will break the Internet with common sense advice, Deaf.

Isn't that it? There is no set answer. It depends on the situation. The best advice is to be able to discern the situation.

The one caveat is that you should not freeze if it moves to a shoot situation or you enter the situation and you are not able to shoot because of some personality issue.

I have seen folks in FOF who find they cannot and thus decide carrying is not for them. The same occurs, I am told by folks who train such, that some folks who have to work alone in wild animal country have to be screened for the ability to shoot a critter if need be. Some can't.

[Deaf Smith]

You will break the Internet with common sense advice, Deaf.

Thanks Glenn...

And folks, two wrongs don't make a right, but it does make us even (but not in court.)

So watch what you are doing.

Deaf

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

Warn when you can, shoot if you must....

Four pages trying to answer a question that has no answer any more complicated than that.