That’s because the bullet is fired relatively straight up. if you fire it into the horizon with the intent to clear objects then it falls without the force of gravity applied to a great height.
If the attackers aren’t deterred by the sight of the gun in your hand, what makes you think they’d be any more deterred by the sound of the gun in your hand going off into the air? What deters attackers isn’t the mere sight or sound of a gun, but the fear that you are actually willing to use the gun to shoot THEM. If you’re not willing to do so, why should they be frightened of it?
Your option C isn’t likely to accomplish anything that showing the gun hasn’t already done, so you’re stuck with option A or option B. If you’re convinced they’re going to beat the woman severely before the police can get there, you really are out of options - it’s time to engage them. Yes, you are risking hitting the victim - but if she’s being beaten to death, it may be a risk worth taking.
I think that’s what’s likely to happen in this case. Iowa is a relatively gun-friendly state, and the man was responding to a legitimate danger (not just showing off). I doubt this will even make it to trial, and if it does I’d bet on the jury not convicting him.
I support the tough guys’ stance that he should have shot to kill on the grounds that it would, if the victims were of some race different to his own, unleash yet more must-read-every-post fascinating mile-long threads about people I don’t care about at all such as the Martin-Zimmerman spectacular in the Pit.
He was booked and charged with “reckless use of a firearm” - that is being arrested, and I don’t see how you could say otherwise.
[QUOTE=artemis]
If the attackers aren’t deterred by the sight of the gun in your hand, what makes you think they’d be any more deterred by the sound of the gun in your hand going off into the air? What deters attackers isn’t the mere sight or sound of a gun, but the fear that you are actually willing to use the gun to shoot THEM.
[/QUOTE]
When running out of your house, they may not see you have a gun, and may not hear you yelling until you get close to them. But fire the gun and that will be heard and get their attention. Then they see you have a gun and will shoot.
Repeatedly firing warning shots is stupid and unnecessary, but one warning shot saves time while preventing risk of hitting the fiance. Firing toward a group of people is no guarantee the bullet will hit one of those people, or that it won’t go through and still hit someone else.
However, I have heard that concealed carry classes teach that if you shoot to wound or disarm, then you are guilty of a crime because you were not in fear for your life (or the life of another). If you were in fear for your life, you would shoot to stop them, i.e. center of mass, not aiming at limbs, etc. I can imagine shooting to warn fitting the same logic.
I might find him guilty of a noise constraint violation or some misdemeanor, but given the circumstances as described, he was shooting to protect his fiance from violent attackers and he shot to warn out of concern for safety. A stern lecture on the risks of shots into the air would be warranted, but not arresting him.
Completely different circumstances. Hunter was responding to an actual serious crime - he was defended somebody who was being assaulted. Zimmerman was “responding” to a crime that only existed in his imagination.
First time I’ve heard this. When I was trained we were taught to shoot for center of mass in any situation where you were shooting at a person. We were also taught how to safely fire a warning shot. And we were taught that you were always supposed to say your intent was to disable the person not kill him. Granted, this was law enforcement training not civilian training.
True, but note that the poster I was responding to said “But let’s say you try pointing the gun at them and shouting stop, and they don’t stop.” I was assuming the criminals were aware of the gun pointing at them (since the defender is shouting). There are FAR too many people who think that firearms are some form of magic talisman: just point the gun at the criminal and he’ll shit his pants and run away. Often, that is what happens - but not always, and anyone who’s bringing a gun into a conflict needs to think about how they’re going to respond if that’s NOT the way the criminal in question decides to behave. Guns are really only useful if you’re actually prepared and willing to use them offensively, and not everyone who has one is.
And also because there’s really no such thing as “shooting to wound.” There are big blood vessels in the arms and legs (as well as in the shoulder region); hit one of those, and your opponent may well bleed out before the ambulance arrives. And even nonlethal gunshot wounds may leave a person crippled for life. People who talk approvingly about “shooting to wound” don’t appreciate the true lethality of the instrument they’re holding, and may make a choice which could unnecessarily kill or cripple an opponent who could have been stopped by other means. Hence the blanket rule that if you can’t justify killing the criminal, you’re not justified in shooting him at all (to wound or otherwise).
The police may not have had much choice but to arrest them, given the law that seems to be on the books there. But this is definitely a case where some exercise of prosecutorial discretion would seem to be warranted. If I was the prosecutor, I’d drop this case.
No disputing any of that. My point was that there is a distinction between shooting someone as the first recourse, and shooting to get their attention with the knowledge that it might require shooting someone if they don’t back down. It’s the “I don’t really want to shoot anyone, but I will if I have to.”
Yet another example of when it’s better to shoot and kill the assailant than have a gun out (whether you fire or not). Sad commentary on the nuances of the law re: defending someone else.
$5 says he ends up serving more time than the youths.
Sad but true, that is the way the laws are written.
The instructions given during a class to obtain a concealed carry license are given to keep you on the right side of the law.
You never draw or show your weapon unless you have determined that the situation requires you** to use it**. To shoot. Just showing the gun in order to intimidate a person is a crime, usually called “brandishing”. You may defuse the threat but you are likely to lose your permit to carry.
“Warning shots” are not allowed. If you determine that you need to draw your gun, you have determined that you need to use the weapon, and any warning shots go directly into the center body mass of the threat, until the threat no longer exists. You may still get arrested but then you can explain your reasoning in court about the perceived threat and your need to respond.
Otherwise you do not bring the gun out.
Yes, that leads to a conundrum. You feel threatened, you draw your weapon to defend yourself. The act of drawing your weapon causes the attacker to stop and leave, thereby defusing the situation. But now you still have to shoot someone to justify why you pulled your gun.
This is where “common sense” should be able to parse the difference between “he came at me, I told him to stop, he kept coming, I pulled my gun, he ran off” and “he was annoying me, I pulled my gun, and he ran off”. Sadly, sometimes it comes down to the abilities of the lawyers to make the jury interpret the situation one way or the other. Credibility of the parties involved, witnesses, interpretation of intentions, etc.
Not showing your weapon until you absolutely need it, and then using it immediately is the strongest case to justify. Anything less leaves wiggle room for interpretation - were you really in danger, did you limit your actions to the minimum required to stop the aggression, etc?
Giving a warning shot like this guy exacerbates the situation because of the risks of bullets fired into the air, plus the room to interpret the necessity of shooting.
If you didn’t have to shoot someone, then you didn’t have to shoot at all. If you didn’t have to shoot at all, you didn’t have to pull your weapon. If you didn’t have to pull your weapon, you weren’t really in danger. If you weren’t really in danger, then you are a hothead running around threatening and shooting willy nilly. Slippery slope, man, slippery slope.
I know it sounds stupid, I would agree that it is, but that is the way the law usually works against a person who exhibits a gun.
Say there is an assault going on that you are a witness to. You open your coat and declare that you are armed and will shoot if they don’t stop. They all stop and run away.
You are now viewed as the aggressor and have used your ability to carry a weapon in an unlawful manner. If the police get involved in any complaint you are going to surrender your gun and probably your permission to carry it.
These “brandishing” laws mean well. They are targeted at ‘gang bangers’ and others, who wave guns out of car windows, show them to intimidate people, etc. And not at responsible gun carriers. But they can work against anyone showing a weapon for any reason.
Where would this happen? What you described was clearly a legitimate use of a gun for defense.