I never mentioned anything about wives and/or kids in the house. And I don’t have any good stuff to steal.
All I’m saying is I feel warning a robber that I have a gun in the hope that he just leaves is better in MY opinion than just blindly shooting someone in the dark.
Surprisingly, I don’t live my life in fear everyday that someone is going to break in and tie me to a chair and torture and kill me.
And one more quick question for those of you who believe if you are in enough danger to draw a gun, you are in enough danger to shoot it, how do you explain this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5MB2nmdXvI The police clearly have their guns drawn, but surprisingly are not shooting them. I guess they are doing it wrong.
That’s true, that’s why I wouldn’t go downstairs if I heard a burglar, even if I DID have a gun. I think warning him NOT to come upstairs because I have a gun, and telling him I called the police is MORE than sufficient. I don’t need to go and try to shoot him. Now if he was coming upstairs AFTER I told him not too, than yeah, I would be prepared to shoot him.
Also, I take back the comment about you needing help. Uncalled for in this discussion.
The police are trained to do that, you’re not, as the police are often required to deliberately move into dangerous situations. Plus there’s no real doubt the will fire if necessary.
Shouting at someone that you have a gun from another room is very different from pointing it at them, which is what I assumed you were talking about. I still maintain that telling someone that if you’re not prepared to use the weapon is more likely to be dangerous than helpful.
Dude, there are 7 or 8 cops there, all big strong young cops (two are female?), heavily armed , with bullet proof vests, in broad daylight *vs one perp/suspect. *
As opposed to one older out of shape guy, in his own house, in the dark.
It is to laugh because some people are saying if you are in enough danger to draw a gun, you are in enough danger to shoot it. Those police MUST have been in enough danger to draw their guns, but NOT in enough danger to shoot them. Or are you saying they WEREN’T in enough danger to draw their guns?
Actually, I don’t know what you are saying. You are factually stating the contents of the video. So what? do you have a point?
I tend to agree that it’s very bad practice to ever threaten with a gun. If you have a gun and think you are in danger for your life and it’s the only way to protect yourself, you shoot. If you have a gun, but do not think your life is in danger, you do other stuff–call 911 and lock your bedroom door, go out the back door, whatever.
But there’s no point in threatening with a gun. It’s pointless escalation, because now the other person is afraid they might die, and scared people do stupid things.
If someone is genuinely in a corner and has no way of knowing what’s going on (like they wake up with a stranger in their bedroom, for example), I don’t think they have to warn anyone. But if someone is in their own bedroom, hears someone downstairs, gets out their gun and goes to confront them instead of calling 911, and then shoots them after a warning, that’s wrong. It never had to come to that.
I’m really struggling here, especially in today’s climate, that you can’t sort out the difference between the general practice of one untrained civilian in a, more than likely, once in a lifetime life threatening situation and the process of experienced trained law enforcement who actually practice this shit.
That THEY werent in enough danger to fire, due to the fact that there were 8 of them, all fit, heavily armed, with bulletproof vests in broad daylight. However, if I was alone, in the dark with a guy a third my age-** I** would be in enough danger to fire.
Well if they WEREN’T in enough danger to fire, why did they have their guns drawn at all? According to some people here, drawing a gun without firing it needlessly escalates a situation.
I don’t understand why threatening someone with a gun to get them to leave your house is such a bad idea that KILLING them is a better option.
Because you’ve escalated the situation. If you’ve got time/space to threaten them,you’ve got time and space to go out a window, call 911, hide in the closet. If you have a gun, you keep it ready while you are doing these things, and if they escalate the situation–if you have reason to believe they are trying to kill you–then you protect yourself. But showing a gun is as likely to cause them to try to overpower you–or bring out their own gun that they only brought “just in case”, themselves–as it is to scare them off.
We were talking about non-police. You have the responsibility to protect you (and your family). The police have the responsibility to protect the public safety.
Given the situation, its not stupid. Warning shot vs. who knows what those trespassers will do means warning shot wins out every time. If I hit anything, I know there are laws in some states that blames the criminal for any related harm or damage that comes from their crime. As I said, I’ll take my chances with the law that I tried to back away and de-escalate the situation rather than go into it guns blazing leaving 2 people dead.
This guy was acquitted so the jury obviously bought his story that he felt threatened. I think had things worked out differently, he’d have won if it was over a warning shot too.
In this case, the blame would and should be placed on the trespassers, who prompted me to draw my gun and fire a warning shot. I have confidence that had I been in the trial under those circumstances, I would have won.
Which, in this case, would be preferable to killing the trespassers. Even in the unlikely event I hit someone, you know there are laws in some states that blames the criminal initiating a crime for any subsequent harm that comes from that. I seem to recall some kid who was a getaway driver for a robbery gone wrong. The robber killed somebody and the other kid only drove the car and wasn’t even in the liquor store. But they tacked on murder for the getaway driver because he was part of a crime in which someone died.
My defense would be the same. Trespassers in my house. I fire a warning shot to freeze them so I could get away. If that hits anyone, well, the trespassers were the ones who made me have to fire a gun in the air in my sincere desire to try to get away, so they should be blamed. Whether I can win or not, that would be my defense and I’d gladly take that over killing two people. You never know how their ghosts would react
Because the odds that I’d do worse harm shooting into the air is less than if I aimed at the trespassers and pulled the trigger
In my house we have woodenly floorboards, I’d aim for that. There’s probably an even less chance that a bullet ricocheting around a house and losing kinetic energy with each bounce would eventually hurt someone. I’d take my chances
Not recommended, but I’d do it anyways. Therefore, I’d do it. Unless you can read my mind, you’ll just have to accept that
I’m glad you’re still doing your part to make sure America’s IQ never gets too high. Have some kids, I’m sure they’ll all have at least 9 fingers :rolleyes:
It basically sounds like Yogsooth believes that even fear for ones life is not enough for killing–that this is reserved for when it is the only choice. He’d rather risk dying than do something he believes is morally wrong.
His morals are why I think we really, really need a non lethal system like Tasers that work like bullets. Then he wouldn’t be afraid that he’d kill someone when he didn’t have to.
I mean, the reason I hate these situations is that it’s clear, after the fact, that no one needed to die. I see that as something that we should be trying our absolute hardest to prevent. That’s why I hate SYG and other such laws, as it encourages you to put yourself in situations where you reasonably know that you may be put in fear of your life.
That should be a factor in whether self defense is allowed.