And if I do that, I am NOT protecting my family’s safety, but instead being reckless and stupid?
Yeah, that’s basically it, thank you. I get that some people get scared and want to do whatever it takes to protect themselves. I get scared too but I have to be more than just scared to shoot someone, I don’t think I can do it that easily and then rationalize it later as just being scared. So if I violate some law by shooting up into the air, then so be it. I’ll take that chance
Yep. There’s one of you, untrained, in the dark- instead of eight heavily armed with body armor , well trained, fit young policemen in broad daylight.
I’m reminded of this scene (another lesson you can take from Hollywood, Robin WIlliams (RIP), and Good Morning Vietnam)…
Cronauer: Let’s try a very special situation. Wilkie, somethin’ special, okay? You go into a restaurant okay? A waitress comes up to you. You’re, eh-- You’re wearing your best new suit. She comes up, she spills soup all over you, looks at you like… “Eh, I’m sorry. What are you gonna do about it,asshole?”
What do you say to her? What would you say? They spilled something on your pants. What would they do? What would you do?
**Wilkie: **I do nothing.
Cronauer: Come on, Wilkie. It’s cursing class. You’re gettin’ a little pissed off. What would you do?
Wilkie: I just remain reticent.
Cronauer: Okay, she goes in the kitchen, she gets a knife, she starts stabbing you. She’s stabbing you. She’s putting forks in you. She’s got spoons in your eyes, Wil. They’re startin’ to cut you with knives. They’re puttin’ spoons in your eyes. What would you do, Wil?
(silence)
What would you do?
Wilkie: I’m waiting to die.
Now nevermind the fact that Wilkie uses a somewhat not traditionally conversational word like “reticent” in a beginning ESL class, but this seems to be the (obviously hyperbolic) stance here.
You are being reckless and stupid by increasing the risk to your family. Either you and your family are in danger, in which case you shoot, or they’re not, in which case you don’t escalate the situation. The police have backup, and handcuffs, and other methods of quickly de-escalating things, you don’t.
This is both the law, and what those knowledgeable about using guns for defence say. You still seem to be basing everything on Hollywood.
But that’s his choice.
Are you saying that it should be his choice, or that, legally, he’s allowed to make that choice? Because it seems pretty clear that, at least in a lot of states, it’s not legal to threaten someone with a gun.
Doesnt his family get a vote also?
I’m saying should. And I don’t think his choice is morally inferior either. If being a diehard pacifist is okay, why isn’t kinda leaning that way okay as well. Am I morally inferior because I wouldn’t hesitate to shot some mofo that needed shooting but I don’t carry a gun so it aint happening?
And I’m also saying that if, BY DEFINITION, a warning shot is automatically proof that you were NOT in enough danger to fire in the first place is bullshit.
That may well be true legally in many places and probably in many situations where some people think a warning shot is warranted, but as a blanket analysis of all situations its bullshit IMO.
Choosing to recklessly put your family in more danger when you have the right and the means to get them out of danger is unquestionably immoral. Choosing to put someone else in danger who’s not a threat to you or your family - which is what happens if you fire a warning shot - is also less than morally ideal, if not quite as outright immoral.
What is the point of a warning shot? You can let someone know you have a gun without firing one, and if you fire it the bullet has to go somewhere. Shooting at anything except that which you want to, and have a right to, hit is dangerous and stupid. There are many dangerous and stupid things people aren’t allowed to do in their own house, and randomly firing a gun is quite reasonably one of them.
You seem to be saying that there is NO possibility that the mere sight of a homeowner having a gun will scare the intruder away? If I flash a gun at someone trying to rob me, you are saying there is ABOSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO WAY that the robber will flee rather than risk being shot? No way at all??
So drawing a gun without shooting causes needless escalation? Is that what you are saying? Again, I ask why would a cop draw a gun if he isn’t going to shoot it? Not just the video linked above, but what about the recent pool party confrontation. The cop there drew his gun and didn’t fire it. So, did he needlessly escalate the situation? Did he cause more danger to himself by drawing his weapon and not firing it? Did he do it wrong? What is the point of the police pointing a gun at someone without firing it, if it is not to scare someone into complying? Do only police have this “pointing a gun at someone and not shooting them” training?
I’m saying that you’re increasing the risk to you and your family by escalating the situation, and if in doing so you use a weapon when not entitled to, you will be breaking the law.
What part of that don’t you understand? By bringing the gun into it, you force him into a fight or flight situation, whereas by not using one, if he’s not violent, there’s no reason he would be. You are changing a non-violent situation into a possibly violent one.
If it’s already a violent situation, shoot him before he hurts or kills you and your family. That should be obvious, and if you won’t shoot then I’ve no idea why you would have a gun in the first place.
You are not the police.
Yes, he is in a fight or flight situation. Just like any other robber would be when caught in somebody’s house. Hopefully flight. That way, I don’t have to KILL somebody.
I never said I WOULDN’T shoot. I just asked why does KILLING somebody have to be the first, last, and only acceptable solution to an intruder in my house? And I never once mentioned my family being in the house, simply my awesome TV that I don’t want stolen. But again, I’m not going to KILL a guy over it. I’m amazed that some of you think that a television IS something worth KILLING a guy over.
So you would recommend a different strategy then “Just kill the guy” if the homeowner was a policeman? What special “pointing a gun at someone” training do policemen get that I can’t get? What about military personnel? Do you have a different strategy for them other than “Just kill the guy because you have a legal right to”?
I’m not recommending “just kill the guy”. I’m saying that, by using a gun but not shooting to kill, you are increasing the risk to yourself and probably breaking the law.
If you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury, shoot him. If not, don’t take actions that will increase the chance of you being in that danger, that’s stupid. And if you increase the risk to the person - who’s not threatening you, remember - it may well be illegal.
You think a TV’s not worth killing for? Fair enough, it’s a pretty sensible view. Then don’t involve a gun.
And brings us back to my original question: Is pointing a gun at a robber IN YOUR HOUSE and making him leave illegal while just shooting him isn’t? Before we got sidetracked into “Why wouldn’t you just shoot him?” questions, that was my original inquiry. Does anyone have a factual answer?
I take it you do not subscribe to the “A TV is not worth killing for” view? And would you, in fact, recommend a different course of action for a homeowner who is a cop?
Firstly, it will differ in different states, due to different laws about whether a burglar is presumed a threat. Secondly, you still seem to think that pointing a gun at someone doesn’t count as lethal force. It does. So, you will be allowed to point a gun at him in the same circumstances in which you could shoot him - that is, when you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Some states consider that any home invader puts you in such danger, others don’t.
Are you somehow of the view that pointing a gun at someone isn’t lethal force?
Why would you think that? My opinion on that isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that you keep claiming that it’s fine for you to use lethal force to get someone to leave your house, whilst simultaneously claiming it’s wrong to kill someone over a TV.
I would recommend that a cop only use lethal force when at risk of death or serious injury. Same as anyone else. The cop, unlike you, may well be allowed to put himself in such risk to make an arrest, and so hold someone at gunpoint for that purpose, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone do that without backup.
You might be able to get away with making a citizen’s arrest doing the same thing, but I wouldn’t bet on that. You have none of the legal protections that the police do whilst doing that.
IS “lethal force” a recognized term? What is the definition of “lethal force”? I can’t find anything that doesn’t equate it with “deadly force”. Are you saying pointing a gun at someone is “deadly force”? I don’t know, I’m asking
Also, I am NOT saying it’s fine, I am ASKING if it is a crime to threaten someone with a gun who is IN YOUR HOUSE, while not being a crime if you just shoot them. And no, I don’t think pointing a gun at someone is the same as killing them.