Another "warning shots" case

Talking to a man who has a chicken coop in his back yard. The night before our conversation he caught someone stealing a chicken from his coop, running away from the place. He emptied the magazine of his 9mm at the thief!! No one called the cops so far.

I told him it was a stupid move and asked him if a chicken was worth a man or kid's life? Discussed consequences and he told me to go to hell!

I marvel at how some folks think!
 
Ed Fowler said:
Talking to a man who has a chicken coop in his back yard. The night before our conversation he caught someone stealing a chicken from his coop, running away from the place. He emptied the magazine of his 9mm at the thief!! No one called the cops so far.

I told him it was a stupid move and asked him if a chicken was worth a man or kid's life? Discussed consequences and he told me to go to hell!

I marvel at how some folks think!
Click to expand...

I appreciate how this forum and others like it give us an opportunity to mull over potential situations. In this instance, the guy obviously will be facing serious consequences. I wonder if he will end up thinking it was worth it.
 
Some goof here in Denver was having trouble with pot plants being stolen from his back yard at night (it's legal to grow a small amount,but only indoors)He ended up shooting a couple of 14 year olds with a 22 one night.One of them died.A few weeks later another kid came forward who had been shot earlier in the summer.I can't imagine the shooter has much of a life to look forward to.
 
Ed Fowler said:
Talking to a man who has a chicken coop in his back yard. The night before our conversation he caught someone stealing a chicken from his coop, running away from the place. He emptied the magazine of his 9mm at the thief!! No one called the cops so far.

I told him it was a stupid move and asked him if a chicken was worth a man or kid's life? Discussed consequences and he told me to go to hell!

I marvel at how some folks think!
Click to expand...

you're lucky he didn't shoot you :eek:
 
It's black letter law in MN. Unless your life is threatened and you have no way to safely leave the area, you do not use the gun. You own a gun, it is your duty to know the law concerning it, and it is a lot cheaper to learn by reading a book or taking a class than to have a judge explain it to you after the fact.
 
Neighboring rancher told me this story, claimed it occurred during his "younger days":

He'd been having a lot of trouble with trespassers and poachers. One night he saw a light going across one of his pastures and fired a 30-06 off over their heads. Light went out...

A few days later, the county sheriff asked him to stop by his office. There on his desk was a miners helmet with a .30 cal groove cut across the top of it. The sheriff asked him did he know anything about it, he allowed as how he knew nothing of the matter, nothing more was said.

He said on the one hand he learned a lesson from it, but on the other he didn't have any more trespassing issues after that.:D
 
We had a case, in a canyon outside of city limits. A cowboy (real) arrived back to his campsite, to find a group of delinquents vandalizing/stealing his property.
Click to expand...
For the most part I AGREE with the fact that warning shots are not a good idea, most of the time illegal and can (and have) resulted in some bad outcomes like innocent people being hit however in the case of the cowboy returning to camp I can rationalize a justification. Reason is I live in a rural area where shooting is common in the woods outside of my property. Therefore a warning shot most likely is not going to necessarily illegal if not fired AT the intruders. Also in a scenario such as this (and depending on how far he was from the closest Law Enforcement) the situation could be more imminent and acute considering the trespassers ALSO know this and a rural or remote mindset is very different from that in a city. In a city environment a trespass might be an impulsive decision whereas in the remote area it could be planned and calculated - again by those knowing all parties are far from any Law Enforcement. Also it is much more likely if this WAS planned the trespassers/thieves are much more likely to be armed themselves. I have spent most of my life hunting, camping etc. in very remote areas and other than a few raised eyebrows and keeping an eye on a few people I have never experienced anything like this - but then a sidearm is with me at all times regardless and if I were confronted with something like this I no doubt would have also fired a warning shot.
 
Last edited:
Leslie Sapp said:
Neighboring rancher told me this story, claimed it occurred during his "younger days":

He'd been having a lot of trouble with trespassers and poachers. One night he saw a light going across one of his pastures and fired a 30-06 off over their heads. Light went out...

A few days later, the county sheriff asked him to stop by his office. There on his desk was a miners helmet with a .30 cal groove cut across the top of it. The sheriff asked him did he know anything about it, he allowed as how he knew nothing of the matter, nothing more was said.

He said on the one hand he learned a lesson from it, but on the other he didn't have any more trespassing issues after that.:D
Click to expand...

WOW - Just plain WOW! Everybody was lucky on that one. Good Sheriff!
 
Another "warning shots" case

A couple of years ago, shortly after my truck had been broken into,I had parked way up in the mtns on an old jeep road and hiked a 1/4 mile when I heard a couple of dirt bikes.They stopped where my truck was parked and started messing around.I fired a round into a stump a few feet from me and they left in a hurry
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, you don't pull the trigger unless there is an immediate threat to life. If you think someone is up to no good outside your home, you call the police. If you think someone is trying to enter your home, you call the police.

If someone enters your home, it's game on.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
TAC said:
Seriously? If someone fired a warning shot at me, how am I to know if it was in fact a warning shot? I'd return fire, with full intention to stop the perceived threat, immediately!
Click to expand...

Well a couple of things, first of all, you don't fire warning shots at someone, secondly, if you were armed and up to no good, you probably wouldn't be getting the courtesy of a warning shot.
 
686-380 said:
We read what the newspaper wanted us to believe.
Click to expand...

"Deputies interviewed several witnesses and learned that a group of juvenile males, ages 15
- 16 had been sleding in the area when one of the boys threw the hat of another onto
the shed roof. A 16 year old boy climbed over a fence and onto the roof to retrieve
the hat when suddenly the shots were heard." -Carver County Sheriffs Office
 
Last edited:
Muss Muggins said:
Pretty sure it's the same everywhere that you have to be in immediate fear of death or serious physical injury . . .
Click to expand...

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Not necessarily. FL law.
 
From Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Continued

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Personal Observation: The statues obviously allow for the use of deadly force in situations where some people might think it should not. It's your right to think whatever you so choose. In some shape, form or fashion the current statues have been part of Texas law for a long long long time. Attempt to steal a persons horse, car or dog at night and be prepared for that to be your last act.

Example 1: If some social degenerate is window peeping in your bedroom at night.

Example 2: If some misguided soul is spray painting graffiti on the side of your vehicle at night while standing in your front yard.
Are these examples extreme and simplistic? YES and I fully admit they are hypothetical but according to Texas Statue the use of deadly force is justified.

In Texas the Castle Doctrine also extends to ones vehicle. In short, if you can legally own a handgun it's not illegal to have it in your vehicle so long as it is concealed.

hardcase60
 
Last edited:
SMSgt said:
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Not necessarily. FL law.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you have be in fear of immediate death or serious injury (imminent peril of death or great bodily harm). My point is there is not a state that lets you shoot somebody without being in fear of the aforementioned. Florida helps out and defines it for you, to a degree, but those terms are terms of art, with specific meanings. All the other states do the same. The standard is what I stated. How you get there is sometimes a moving target, but for the most part pretty similar stuff.
 
Last edited:
hardcase60 said:
Example 1: If some social degenerate is window peeping in your bedroom at night.

Example 2: If some misguided soul is spray painting graffiti on the side of your vehicle at night while standing in your front yard.
Are these examples extreme and simplistic? YES and I fully admit they are hypothetical but according to Texas Statue the use of deadly force is justified.
Click to expand...

The final line in your code states that deadly force is not allowable UNLESS (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. .

That final clause qualifies all the preceding lines.

Mitigating case law, if existing, notwithstanding, I'd think it ill advised to shoot a peeper, or a kid spray painting your car.
 
686-380 said:
I'd like to know whether the trespasser was charged with trespassing.
Click to expand...

In my state, it's not "trespassing" unless the property is conspicuously posted, or the people have been warned in the past that they are now allowed on the property, AND that this can be proven, or the police already know it.
 
Muss Muggins said:
Pretty sure it's the same everywhere that you have to be in immediate fear of death or serious physical injury . . .
Click to expand...

Nope. In MI you can shoot a fleeing felon. Even for a non-violent felony and even if your life isn't in danger. You can be sued and may or may not be held civilly liable, but not criminally prosecuted. Can't shoot em if they stop though.
 
RSanch111 said:
Nope. In MI you can shoot a fleeing felon. Even for a non-violent felony and even if your life isn't in danger. You can be sued and may or may not be held civilly liable, but not criminally prosecuted. Can't shoot em if they stop though.
Click to expand...

Or if you're a cop. (Tennessee v. Gardner)
 
RSanch111 said:
Nope. In MI you can shoot a fleeing felon. Even for a non-violent felony and even if your life isn't in danger. You can be sued and may or may not be held civilly liable, but not criminally prosecuted. Can't shoot em if they stop though.
Click to expand...

There's a little more to it than that. You must also articulate a belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others.

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

They are also clarified, or further clarified in Section 780.951:
PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.
 
"There's a little more to it than that. You must also articulate a belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others."

You said a real sounds like the fine print stuff!

Thanks for posting that it was interesting!
 
Steve912.

Texas statues are like that. At 2:00 AM in a rural part of any Texas County if a 5' 8" 70 year old man confronts a 6" 2" 20 year old male in an effort to stop felony criminal mischief being done to his property or any trespass (peeping in a window) it would be hoped that the victim could convey to law enforcement how he reasonably believed that any force other than deadly would have exposed him to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. If not then may the force be with him. hardcase60
 
Springfeildkid585 said:
Or if you're a cop. (Tennessee v. Gardner)
Click to expand...

Wrong, same rules apply to cops and non-cops. TN v. GARNER (not Gardner) was a CIVIL case, not a criminal case. It did not set precedent for criminal law, only civil. After TN v. Garner most states passed legislation that made it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. Michigan wasn't one of them, so the "Fleeing Felon Rule" still applies. They won't tell you this in your $99.00 CPL class because you shouldn't be shooting at non-violent fleeing felons anyway. But it's good to know that you can not be criminally charged in MI for shooting one. Good way to win a bet too.
 
Muss Muggins said:
There's a little more to it than that. You must also articulate a belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others.

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

They are also clarified, or further clarified in Section 780.951:
PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.
Click to expand...

Nope. What you posted is what is required for a "self defense" case, and Michigan's "castle doctrine" not the "fleeing felon rule". There is not a "fleeing felon" statute, it's based on common law and case law in MI. Read People V. Couch, one of the definitive cases on the subject in MI. Also the following article. Same rules apply for non-cops. Nothing has changed since the following cases when it comes to Michigan's "fleeing felon rule".

Laws, rules keep cops from removal
Charges can't be brought if suspected felon is shot

May 17, 2000

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
and JOE SWICKARD
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Sometimes, laws and regulations thwart officials when they try to get rid of a cop for a questionable shooting.

Detroit police executives and prosecutors agreed in 1995, for instance, that a rookie cop was wrong when he shot an unarmed teenager who was tampering with a car. But they couldn't kick him off the force or put him on trial.

"We fired him," Police Chief Benny Napoleon said. "The arbitrator gave him his job back."

The officer, Archie Arp, declined to comment.

On the night of Aug. 23, 1995, Arp was off duty and dropped in to visit his girlfriend at a bar on Joy Road near West Parkway. Arp, 45, had been a cop for a year.

Arp was in the bar a few minutes, police and court records show, when he was asked to check out the parking lot because a kid was seen messing with a car.

Moments later, gunshots were heard and 14-year-old Charles Clay lay dying on the street. Clay was about 90 feet from Arp, and a screwdriver with a 4-inch blade was near the youth's body.

Arp told investigators the youth ran but suddenly turned on him with a shiny object that Arp believed was a weapon. It was the screwdriver.

The autopsy showed that Clay had been shot in the middle of the back. The bullet's path through his body indicated that he may have been running when hit.

Even so, Sgt. Arlie Lovier of the special assignment squad, who was the officer in charge of the homicide investigation, said it was "a good shooting," with no violations of criminal law or department regulations.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wanted to charge Arp, but couldn't. The office determined that a criminal case was impossible because a Michigan Supreme Court ruling said it was legal for anyone -- civilian or police officer -- to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. Assistant prosecutor Michael King said he regretted that he could not bring state charges, "but I feel bound" by the Supreme Court ruling.

However, prosecutors issued a news release indicating that the shooting could be a "civil violation of the deceased's federal rights to be free of unreasonable arrest."

In a September 1995 letter to the police department, county prosecutors said Arp's story wasn't supported by facts, and his use of deadly force appeared to violate department policy.

The police department held hearings and fired Arp, but the dismissal was overturned on appeal in 1998. Arp was suspended for six months, and is still with the department.

Clay's family sued in Wayne County Circuit Court in 1995. The city settled the case for $1 million a year later.
Click to expand...


People V. Couch, Michigan Supreme Court: People v. Couch :: 1990 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia


I was down at the prosecutor's office on an unrelated matter and there had just been a case of a guy shooting a man who had broken into his garage. The burglar took off running and the homeowner chased him. The bad guy stopped after being ordered to by the homeowner. If I recall correctly, the burglar said: "Go ahead and shoot me." So the homeowner did. He was charged with some type of criminal homicide. I confirmed with the prosecutor that if the guy had shot the fleeing burglar in the back while he was running away, he wouldn't have been charged at all. There have been various other cases over the years in MI with both cops and non-cops involved. One of them involved a Dr. who caught someone trying to steal his car in a parking structure. Doctor chased the guy and shot him as he was hiding under another car. He was charged. If he would have shot the guy while he was still running, he wouldn't have been.
 
Last edited:
RSanch111 said:
Nope. What you posted is civil law, not criminal, and what is required for a "self defense" case, not "fleeing felon". There is not "fleeing felon" statute, it's based on common law and case law in MI. Read People V. Couch, one of the definitive cases on the subject in MI. Also the following article. Same rules apply for non-cops:




People V. Couch, Michigan Supreme Court: People v. Couch :: 1990 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
Click to expand...

Duly noted . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

olfart
MORE Tales from the East Texas Outback
Replies
12
Views
887
Major 2
Major 2
oldbrownhat
Two men shoot at each other. Then Batman flees the scene
Replies
3
Views
756
oldbrownhat
oldbrownhat
C
Is Aggravated Stupidity a crime?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chief Wiggums
C
Jack Flash
Concealed Carry Holder Wins Gun Fight W/ Cat Thieves
Replies
18
Views
2K
7shooter
7
oldbrownhat
The risk of the warning shot
2 3
Replies
82
Views
5K
Doug M.
Doug M.

Latest posts

Back
Top