Regardless of what our opinions of warning shots are, if he had fired into the GROUND(not concrete) and called it a miss as mentioned before, he might have walked. I can't tell why the LEO would interview one of the attackers and take his word over the victims. He did manage to disperse the mob mentality without killing someone. If he killed the closest guy he could have had 8 guys saying he was the aggressor and they were just his Sunday school class. Hard to win in a situation like that. I suspect many of critics may have failed that test also. Just in a different way.

__________________
JOSHUA 1:9

He said in the video that there's never a good reason to shoot a gun....then why have one? He and his "warning shots" mentality present more danger to innocent people than to actual threats.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

*
Myself, yeah. That is a life of little or no value to anyone whose opinion I value. I know several LEOs with good shoots in their history, and they share that view. Attack the innocent, and you forfeit the expectation of gentle treatment until you are controlled. This was a pretty clear fact pattern and I think justification is, too. Offender safety is NMFP - it is the problem of the offender. The best way for them to be safe is to not put others in a position where they would be justified in shooting the offender. Pretty clearly, he did not display enough of the mean gene to convince the jackals that he is at the apex.

If she is a real instructor and let him take the pistol, shame on her. That's so stupid my brain started hurting as soon as I read it. Why did that happen? So he could be a macho fool? By firing that shot, he put innocent people at risk for no reason whatsoever. He is the kind of person whose stupid conduct gets the antis all wound up, and gives them support for their position, too. If you don't see his conduct as a risk to all of us who care about our gun rights, you need to revisit the issue.

The car. Oh dear lord. If I have the choice to drive away in a car, why wouldn't that be better? I can do a lot more damage to a crowd of offenders at a lot less risk to myself and the uninvolved if needed; I can hopefully escape without any issues, and the cops can be called from a distance. Bad tactics, no prior thought, no understanding of the dynamics of violent encounters. They were unharmed not by sound decision making and appropriate implementation, but by luck. Not the good luck that comes from being prepared, but the luck that pulls the fool out of the problem in spite of his best efforts to make it worse.

Does he need a felony conviction, or any jail time? No. Does he need a lengthy period of feet vigorously applied to his backside once his head is out of the way, and a large number of sessions in which R. Lee Ermey exhorts him to un(screw) himself? Yeah.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

This guy is not a hero, pro carry role model, etc. This makes CCW holders and gun owners look bad to and empowers the anti gun movement with an irresponsible CCW holder.

Firearms are not pepper ball guns; you can't disperse crowds with warning shots.

IIRC, Garner still allows for warning shots but I don't know of any agency that allows them and thus restricts them via policy.

__________________
Cheers, Charles
SWCA #2442

<cough> Marissa Alexander <cough>

How about a warning shot into the ground that "accidently" hits his foot?

That would be nice but costly defending yourself in court and the law suite.
You can win this stuff but it will cost you.

Rather be tried by six than carried by six.

Until the six really do find you guilty and really do let you spend the rest of your life in prison.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Uhhh, thats tried by 12 or carried by 6.

Well said....

Not always some states do empanel a 6 person jury for certain cases

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Think he was that good a shot? More likely the ricochet hits some bystander.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Humor doesn't always translate. My mistake

Can you cite the code for that?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

The Colorado Crime of Prohibited use of weapons 18-12-106
Knowingly and unlawfully aiming a firearm at another person is a class 2 misdemeanor. 18-12-106 (1) (a)

Recklessly or with criminal negligence discharging a firearm or shooting a bow and arrow is a class 2 misdemeanor. 18-12-106 (1) (b)
Knowingly setting a loaded gun, trap, or device designed to cause an explosion upon being tripped or approached, and leaving it unattended by a competent person who is immediately present, is a class 2 misdemeanor. 18-12-106 (1) (c)

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Warning/validity shot, not in my vocabulary. If my wife and I were ever TRUELY in this situation, let the bodies hit the by God ground, the punks that run off got their warning shots. They all probably have a rap sheet a mile long. As described, this couple was threatened with bodily injury, at close distance, multiple threats, and instead of drilling these punks he argues with them about whether or not the piece is real??? Something's woody in fish pile here...guaranteed.

__________________
I'm Proud To Be An American!

Neither of those laws states that a warning shot is specifically illegal. In the first, there must be some other part of the law that says it's OK to aim a firearm at another person for the purpose of self-defense. If there wasn't, then it wouldn't be legal to use a firearm for self-defense at all.

In the second law, if a warning shot was indeed intended as part of a self-defense technique, then it was intentional and not reckless. Also, if it's a warning shot, then it was not fired at another person so, that law wouldn't even apply.

Now, my comments previous to this were generic in context and not related to the specific case in the OP. Firing a shot randomly in the air, regardless of intent, is reckless in my opinion.

Also, I've stated before and I'll say it again now, warning shots are not valuable and only cost you much needed time and ammo. If you have your gun out and don't need to use it to shoot the "bad guy", why do you have it out?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

OK, what would have you done, it's real easy to second guess someone's else's decision.
he stayed alive, and didn't shoot anyone, guess that's a plus.
I probably wouldn't have went with his choice, but that's what he decided to do, and it saved his butt.

__________________
John

I can understand the thoughts many have in saying that using a gun in a non-lethal way (i.e. warning shots, brandishing, etc…) and avoiding killing or seriously injuring someone makes sense on the surface.

In reality it’s a bad idea. Here’s why….

By definition, using a firearm is considered deadly force. To use deadly force you have to feel in imminent fear for your life (or someone else). If you are in fear for your life, warning shots, brandishing, etc…are not an option. Scaring someone off if you are in fear for your life is NOT an option….there is only stopping the threat. It’s the last and only option. That’s what it means to have to take someone’s life.

To say it another way, even if you don’t agree with my logic, you’re going to be in court explaining your side of the story. How can you honestly say that you were in fear for your life yet chose to fire a warning shot or brandish your gun instead? I would argue that a jury of your peers once given the knowledge/definition of what deadly force is, will have a difficult time relating to your self-defense case and justification.

In the example of this couple, they very well could have felt in fear for their life. But their actions of not driving off in the car they were already in when the situation started, eventually brandishing, and then firing a warning shot don’t reflect their ‘fear’. It reflects they had choices they chose to ignore.

IMO, regardless of what state you live in, or what the nuances of your law say, introducing a gun into a confrontation escalates it to deadly force….even your gun and even if you’re the good guy.

In some states even verbalizing and placing your hand on a concealed gun is considered deadly force…same as if someone came up to you with their hand in their pocket and said, ‘I have a gun’ do XYZ.

If you have to pull it, you have to be willing to follow through. It’s a difficult choice to live with, but from the perspective of your case, you can honestly say that you were in imminent fear for your life and that was the reason you had to do what you did. It was the last and only option. Anything short of that…you should avoid the confrontation altogether.

Something to consider...

Lots of armchair quarterbacks in this group who like to criticize others. IMO, the guy went to extreme lengths not to shoot any of his antagonists...definitely more so than I would have...but then, I wasn't there. I didn't hear and see things through his perspective. Jeez! Give the guy a break.

My former agency didn't allow warning shots, however, there were occasions when they were fired, resulting in a board of inquiry. In one instance, a female officer fired a shotgun into the ground at a civil war battlefield monument when approached by several men bearing shovels and mattocks, who were illegally digging for war relics. They didn't lay down their tools on command, advanced, and she fired. They immediately dropped their tools and raised their hands, knowing she meant business.

In another instance, at Hawaii Volcano, a Ranger fired a warning shot out to sea because a visitor who was walking on a lava flow was in danger. The sound of the surf prevented the Ranger's voice from reaching the man in peril. The handgun shot got his attention, and he returned to the safe zone.

In both cases, the officers were exonerated. It goes to show there are exceptions to every rule. Do what you think you have to do to protect yourselves and your loved ones. Don't expect everyone to pat you on the back. There will always be folks who criticize your actions.

Armchair Quarterbacking?

What do you think is going to happen when it goes to court or when it becomes a dept investigation?

Better to consider the consequences here...at least notionally, than for the first time when it really happens.

Isn't the point of a forum the exchange of ideas, information, and experiences?

Shotgun Joe said it'd be OK.
I can't see where it'd be right, but it is how the guy handled it.
I believe in the permanent solution when set upon by bad guys.
We would be singin' a different song if the guy had simply punched a few large, bloody holes in the assailant.

You're a cop, or were one? You, more than the average citizen, should know better than to judge someone's response in a stressful, life-threatening situation without full knowledge of all the facts, and the rapidly evolving circumstances as seen through the eyes of those who defended themselves. Graham v. Connor covered it for law enforcement officers. Are regular citizens held to some sort of higher standard of which I was unaware? I guess the court will decide what was a "reasonable" use of force in this situation.

I'm not convinced that his firing the shot saved him and his girl.

There are aspects of this that are not being discussed here. Why did they get out of the car? If she is a self-defense instructor, she should have known that was a bad idea. Also, she recently was a runner up in a Tough Man competition so, she's no stranger to slugging it out.

If the one attacker really had a knife, and there were four of them, then a shot would be justified under disparity of force. Absent the knife, the "reasonable person" standard tells us that she has special training and experience that would allow her to dispatch the situation without the shot, but only if there was no knife.

Again, why did they get out of the car? That will be the pivotal action in court.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Oh yeah, as far as "shouldn't be carrying" goes, remember, it was the girl who was carrying and the guy took the gun from her. Think about that for a moment.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

north-carolina.gif

Yea,no warning shots my warning shot would be "I just shot one of your buddy's who is next"

__________________
CCA of North Carolina
A.D.S.I

Are you serious?

I know better than NOT to take incidents like these as opportunities to evaluate training, policy, equipment, and the individual performance of any officer…and in this case a private citizen. You’re right; I don’t know ALL the facts. Generally unless you were there, most never will. That doesn’t mean we can’t take what was reported and use it as a learning tool.

No wants to see anyone get themselves (LEO or not) into a trick-bag by mistakenly doing something they ‘thought’ was right. Tough calls like the one mentioned are opportunities to dispel pros/cons of the person(s) involved and apply it to their own lives.

Overlooking actions taken just based on its final outcome is frankly dumb (i.e. it worked out this time so I must have made the right call).

BTW: The Graham case is about establishing the ‘reasonableness’ of the use of force (i.e. you beat someone excessively after they’ve given up to affect an arrest)…and the general ‘3-Prong’ approach in determining ‘reasonableness’ for LEOs. It stems from the fact that in other well known cases, civilian review boards, judges and juries falsely jumped to conclusions regarding the actions of LEOs (i.e. automatically assuming shooting a fleeing felon in the back was excessive force). That’s why they broke it down to what a reasonable ofc would/should do based on the totality of what the ofc knew at that time (i.e. the ofc shot the fleeing felon in the ‘back’ because although he was running away, he had killed 3 people and was running toward another well populated area…).

IMO, it doesn’t apply in this case. Even after you take out any omissions or unknowns of what has been reported, by the couples own admission, it was 9 vs. 2, threats of grave bodily harm were made, etc…They’ve articulated deadly force justification. The actions of brandishing and firing the gun shows what they verbalized.

People are going to do what they feel is right at the time. The purpose of this thread is go over the pros/cons of what someone else did as food for thought without going through it yourself.

It’s up to the reader to decide what experience/advise they want to discount, or follow, if/when they ever have to make a hard choice...all from the comfort of you PC.

Do you only learn from your own mistakes or do you learn from others too? I can always learn something new from anyone. This is the same thing but your own answer might depend on how you view this thread.

Rant over….

I live in Tennessee. There is no duty to retreat in Tennessee, at home or in public. It was put in place, among other things, to void above arguments. Also, there is no convoluted rationale that failure to try to shoot the aggressor(s) equates to the threat not existing. To the contrary, Tennessee law specifically states that threatening is a legal justified response.

[[ A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.]]]

9 bad guys. Both victims and witnesses saying they were being threatened with serious bodily injury = Justified in threatening or use of deadly force.


"Scaring someone off if you are in fear for your life is NOT an option….there is only stopping the threat.tion is to incapacitate the threat"

Not getting into the details of the story, I'll just use a baseline of 9 bad guys... I carry a J frame or LCP. No matter what action I take, shoot to incapacitate or otherwise, the only favorable outcome will be if at least some or all the bad guys run away. I don't have the skills or carry the equipment to incapacitate 9. No matter what, a "scaring" off will be part of the equation. Whether standing over a bleeding member of the nine or firing one over the heads of the nine, not going to be able to incapacitate them all. Rastoff just got back from Frontline. Maybe he could take 10 or 20 at a time.

I also have grown up on the standard LE training that "we don't do warning shots."

A personal policy of "no warning shots" lasts only until you evaluate all of the options, and a warning shot seems like the only way out of a bad situation.

I have no idea if they are "legal" or not, and am not offering any "legal advice," but I agree they are generally a bad idea. That said, if the media reported everything accurately, I am not sure that I am prepared to say that the man in question acted criminally (negligently, perhaps, depending on where the warning shot went).

Given all I know about "mob mentality" of late (anyone been reading about Ferguson, Missouri?), this guy may have been far worse off if he had shot to stop, and death resulted, as he might be facing 8 other witnesses who testify that a "nut job" just murdered our friend in cold blood, and he and his fiance are making up the rest of the story in order to justify the ruthless, cold blooded murder. Body cams for CCW holders, anyone?

Pathetic state of affairs that this man is facing criminal charges under the circumstances, assuming the facts in the article are true. No one got hurt, day was saved, and the real criminals are roaming free to confront and gang rape again.

We are all programmed NOT to take life, and as this little gang may not have displayed weapons, there would have been the inevitable complaint that the man used deadly force when not facing deadly force. Many of the commentators are now seriously suggesting that police, after the events in Ferguson, Missouri, should be REQUIRED to shoot to wound, not at center of mass. I can only imagine that the news people and all of the commentator and social busybodies would be asking just why a warning shot wasn't fired if someone had gotten killed here. You wonder sometimes if we have not "lost it" as a society.

This whole thing is a contradiction to me. I just can't see myself in a position that's so bad that I need a gun but where I still have time to draw the gun, aim the gun and then stop (in complete contradiction to how I've been trained and have practiced over and over again) and issue a warning.

I've read a lot of posts on the internet where the poster says something to the effect that if my gun comes out I'm going to shoot no matter what and I want to make sure I don't say that but if I draw my gun it's because I really believe that deadly force is warranted and if you're still doing whatever made me think that when my sights are on target I'm going to shoot.

IMO if you draw your gun to threaten deadly force all you're likely to do is create a stand off and sooner or later (as happened here) someone is going to call your bluff. Then what?

Also IMO Assuming the threat still exists, if you do anything but shoot once the gun comes out all you're doing is demonstrating that you aren't willing to shoot and again someone is going to call your bluff and again then what?

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

I don't wonder at all

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Supposedly if a Samurai warrior once drew his sword he was obligated to draw blood with it or he could not sheath the blade. Sounds like some here believe that way. You mean to say if someone is running at me screaming he`s gonna kill me and I pull a gun out he now skids to a halt and start`s to repent of his sin`s, I am gonna say," too late, yer a goner!?"
We all can dream up scenario`s we never been in and how we would like to react. What was it? Nine to two? Now I do believe if nine people were bracing and harassing me and I had a gun, would I tend to hide it and not pull it until they actually started to beat on me and then pull it and start shooting or would I pull it and hope they will back off at the sight of it? Lets see, I gotta think about this, will this state now call that brandishing and send me to the big house? Nope, ah`m gonna open up on them and send their saddles home? Decisions, decisions!
We all agree, we weren't there. There isn't enough reported as said, why did they get out of the car and not drive off?
Since we are all guessing here, here is my guess.
This couple is engaged. She is a self defense instructor. Would you want your GF or wife "protecting YOU? Would a woman want to go with or marry someone that SHE needs to protect? Wouldn't a female self defense instructor tend to date a man that is the type to be at least somewhat up to defending her instead of dating a sissy? Three things stand out that several have mentioned here. 1. Why did they even get out of the car and not just flee? 2. Why did she give the gun to the BF? 3. Why did he fire a warning shot?
Here`s my guess`s. 1. I have been that dumb too. I never ran from a fight. 2. Because she wants a man and this hubby to be is wanting to take charge and she trusts him. 3. He asked her for the gun that she is legally packing because he doesn't have a permit yet, got out of the vehicle because he has to prove he`s not a coward. Believes that he can scare this crowd of punks off if they see he has a gun. Things got out of hand so he shoots a warning shot to show them he means business. Know what? It seemed to work didn't it?
Lets look at another aspect. The nine punks. It`s hard for me to believe all nine thought alike. You have a cocky loudmouth, ignorant druggie that wants to impress the gang and hanger on`s and picks on this couple. Are they ALL of the same thought and want to GB the GF? I doubt it. No one wants to run off and be berated by their peers so some just stay there watching, a couple dumber ones will shout some stupid stuff to also impress their hero and peers. We have the time to monday night quarterback this guys actions that he had just a few seconds to decide what action he was going to take.
It doesn't matter what WE think. What matters is how good his lawyer is convincing the jury. Know what? If the case was made simultaneously in five different courts and jurys there would probley be two different verdicts and if found guilty, three different sentences ranging from next to nothing to life.
Some here said its a big disgrace and a black eye to gun owners. I can also make a case of quite the opposite. I believe some others will read it a different way such as hey, not all gun packers are billy the kid wannabe`s wanting to show how tough and how good with a gun they are, that guy could have shot and didn't.

Before I'd make a comment on whether he was justified or not I want to hear all the facts, from witnesses and all those involved. If there were 9 others involved it won't be difficult to interview them (separately of course) and ascertain their motive in confronting this couple. It appears to me many people are jumping to conclusions based on a news report and a brief statement from only 2 involved. One lesson we (supposedly) learn early in LE is that things are usually not what they seem, that jumping to conclusions to early can leave us embarrassed. Who, what, when, where, and why. When, from the perspective of everyone involved, those questions have been answered our opinions will be perceived as meaningful. Until then, it will look like speculation.

I don't think this situation is about "duty to retreat" or not. I think it's more about what's wise vs what's legal. In this case, I'm still wondering why they got out of the car?


It's called Front Sight and they do train for multiple adversaries. Alas, we only work with 4 at the class.

All kidding aside, I honestly believe that once you put the first shot into one of the bad guys, the rest will take flight. Obviously you can't rely on that, but statistics show that's what will happen. You may only have 6 shots in your gun, but I guarantee once you've shot one, the rest don't want to be next.

I don't know how I would have reacted in this particular situation. Even so, if I felt in immediate danger of great bodily harm to me or my wife, I'd defend myself with as much force as I could bring as quickly as possible; no warning shots.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I don't think it's about retreat either, hence my reply to the poster who thought it did pertain.

Sorry about that. I had to put bug juice on the dog today, Frontline. Got it mixed up.

I don't pretend to know all the particulars of this incident. My guess is that if he got charged with wanton endangerment, then him standing over a dead body when the cops rolled up would not have improved his situation today. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case to the contrary.

I think the guy screwed up on the interview babbling about a "warning shot" more than he did the "warning shot" itself.

*
Samurai issue is a cultural thing not easily applied to Western values and US law, but that also meant that they should not pull it unless they meant it. The response you suggest (too late, I drew) is of course not sound - but neither is what happened.

If he is so insecure he thinks or acts like he is not a man if she does the task for which she is likely better qualified, she needs to get rid of him. He is an immature tool. And if he is such a fool that he thinks getting out of the car to avoid being thought a coward is appropriate, he is ... wait for it ... an immature tool. Further, if she thinks she needs a man to protect her, she is not only a weakling, but a poor role model as an instructor and armed citizen - for both men and women. The only times of which I can think that I would want to have someone take a gun from my possession is if I am injured and cannot perform, so they must, or if I am giving them a spare. I would not associate with these two if those are correct assessments.

He also has NO sense. Just because I can't abide the thought of carrying a J frame as anything but a BUG for generally accepted tactical reasons does not mean I am fool enough to enter an avoidable encounter with many potential assailants. (If still in LE, when I likely would not have a choice, especially others are at risk - I'd be using my AR.) This IS NOT like the Kroger incident in Memphis a few weeks ago. What was sound thought 40-50 years ago in the scenarios you have described is not today. We have a better understanding of law and tactics in a society that has changed.

Putting aside the bad judgment in getting out of the car, and losing the options it provided (as mentioned above, and not only by me), and the complete failure of mindset and tactical thought in not using the apparently justified deadly force at the right time, firing that shot when he did was not sound in law or tactics. He did not avoid using deadly force. He launched a bullet downrange and put innocent people at risk for no reason whatsoever except that he is a clown. If it was appropriate to launch a bullet, the only place to launch it was into the high center mass of the person(s) presenting the most identifiable threat, and they need to be shot until one perceives that they are no longer a threat.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I know someone who was cited (not arrested) for firing a warning shot into the air. The police said he should have fired it into the ground. Generally, however, I don't think a warning shot would be legal unless deadly force would also have been legal.

Yes, I think a lot are forgetting that the girl was the one carrying the gun and he took it from her. In what world is this tactically or legally sound?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

If the girl was falling apart then it might have been a sound move. A lot of folks assume that being an instructor translates to being able to deal emotionally with real world situations. Not necessarily true.

Good point Phil. I still think it's legally a bad idea.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

There was a case recently in NH where a fellow fired a round into the ground because he saw some guys who had robbed him minutes before, robbing his neighbor. His intent was to stop the robbery without shooting AT them.
He was charged with reckless endangerment.
The police said that he endangered other people in the neighborhood by firing into the ground.

I'm not certain, but I think the charge stuck in court.

The liberal news channels featured the story.

What's the problem? It worked didn't it? The thugs took off and no one was injured.
The only problem with a warning shot is not knowing where the bullet will end up. So if he fired into the ground would it be ok?
This zero tolerance on everything is stupid. No one has common sense anymore.

I think you are right. I don't have any statistics and never shot anyone in self defense. I have seen a ton of self defense shooting vids on the Net. The bad guy typically runs the moment a gun is fired, hit or miss.

You never know. A missed shot might disperse a gang, or maybe you shoot one of two brothers in the gang and create a determined adversary. There's only about a billion variable "what ifs" in any given scenario.

Any warning shot I fire will go COM, at least that's where I'll be aiming.

__________________
John

Actually, he probably endangered people in the neighborhood in TWO WAYS:
1) By firing shoots into the ground
2) By allowing a known thief to escape because he had no stomach for shooting him. (even if the police arrested him we all know he was released later, most likely to return to his old trade - and probably escalating his crimes until he eventually hurt someone)

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Big talk. If this is what happened with a warning shot, what do you think would have happened if he had fired a warning shot into the most threatening BG? Would you have paid for his defense? I didn't think so.

If you think it's such a great idea to eliminate trash on the spot without a trial, don't advocate it for others, do it yourself. Criticizing others because they let someone live, when you yourself have not killed under the same circumstances (i.e. practicing instead of preaching), is idle talk that does not reflect well on anyone, certainly not on the one engaging in it.

If the situation as presented is accurate, and he had fired (center mass) at the threat instead of into the air, it's most likely a defense would even be necessary.

As to your comments about me and what I have or have not done. How does it reflect on you, making presumptions about someone whos background you have no knowledge of?

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

That's kinda where I see it.

It's one thing to criticize his actions as less than textbook. But it's a pretty big leap to suggest that the guy would be better off if he'd been standing over a couple dead bodies when the cops rolled up.

You guys also need to remember, according to the news story, the group of bad guys didn't run off until the cop showed up. So, it wasn't necessarily the warning shot that worked.


This shot was bad all the way around. In this case, very different from the OP, the shooter wasn't in immediate danger. Therefore, any shot he took would make him the aggressor. In some states it would be OK, but in most states it's illegal.

Of course, if the neighbor was being threatened with great bodily harm or death, then the shot should have been justified.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.