"Warning shot" is NOT a good idea!

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

When did I say I would convict someone who made a mistake in a situation they never asked for?

marshaul wrote:

Self defense is shooting to stop; shooting to kill is murder.

Like the pharmacist who shot the robber in OKC... between the first shot and the five more shots that killed the kid... 47 seconds passed. Not minutes... but seconds. Using a gun is shooting to kill and saying anything else is disingenuous... but that's par for the course for a Liberal... you can never say the truth... you always say your VERSION of the truth... which means, you lie.

marshaul wrote:

You're a different story; you've evinced a premeditated intent to kill should any criminal provoke you, regardless of how much force is actually required to stop the threat.

Again, a Strawman of epic proportions.... someone should tell you that lying is going to get you in trouble someday.

This is my last response to you since, like all liberals, you can't help yourself but to lie about nearly everything, and make crap up to try and win an argument. Pitiful.

By the way, do you even know what a Strawman is? Your accusation says you don't. My suggestion you sell your "killing tools" and buy a tazer and some pepper spray isn't a Strawman... I didn't use it as the basis to makemy argument... it was a conclusion. Go back to school... learn to debate properly.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

because the use of deadly force to you is this thing that can only happen in extremely special circumstances that only a lawyer could understand

This is a strawman. You created a false position for me, and then attacked it. I never said anything that would imply I wouldn't defend myself in the same circumstances you would. I've been discussing the intent behind and extent of a given act of defense, not the threshold which engenders it. Classic strawman.

Go back to school and learn to comprehend.

And I'm not lying. I said you intend to kill a criminal who crosses you. Your own words confirm this. Your position is that you will shoot until he is dead. If this is not intent to kill, then perhaps you can explain what it is?

This is my last response to you since, like all liberals, you can't help yourself but to lie about nearly everything, and make crap up to try and win an argument. Pitiful.

By the way, nice ad hominem attack. Maybe you should also learn to debate while you're learning basic reading comprehension. :quirky (Incidentally, while I consider myself a Classical Liberal, I find it wholly absurd that you would decry me as a "liberal" -- clearly meaning neo-liberal, which I am most certainly not, accusations to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

marshaul wrote:

You're a different story; you've evinced a premeditated intent to kill should any criminal provoke you, regardless of how much force is actually required to stop the threat.

Again, a Strawman of epic proportions.... someone should tell you that lying is going to get you in trouble someday.

So, if this is a strawman, that must mean I misrepresented your position. Does "shoot to kill" not imply an intent to kill? Please elaborate. If your intent is not to necessarily kill, why would you not "shoot to stop" with the (as you call it) "caveat" that you aim for center mass followed by a head shot, if necessary?

To me, "shoot to kill" implies quite clearly that the intent is to cause death. Do you disagree with this?

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

HankT wrote:

SlackwareRobert wrote:

But for calling 911, don't you risk being charged with misuse of the 911 system?
If he is dead there is no emergency. If you fire a warning shot (not me though)
and they run off, also no emergency.
Why did he wait around for the police is the big question. Or did the poor
thug get scared and report him?
They are going to need a ballistics match before I will "confess" to a discharge.
And then I will still challenge the results and lack of warrent.
If it is a crime to discharge a weapon, then there is no way you can report
a self defense as you would be violating your right to not incriminate yourself.

Seems to me that any LAC who fires any shot anywhere in public ought to report the event.

I would favor a law requiring that. That would be reasonable regulation, in my opinion.

Cops have to file a report when they discharge a weapon. So should non-LEO citizens.

Police are operating with the authority of their respective government, citizens are not. I'm pretty sure requiring a citizen to report a discharged firearm in public would violate the 5th amendment.

 

[RebelHell]

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Cops train to shoot to kill.

No they don't my friend. They train the same as the military does, they shoot center-mass to stop the threat. Shooting center-mass on a most likely moving target gives the greatest possibility of stopping the BGs actions, period. Most of the time the BG will die from his wounds. But it is not with the INTENT of killing the BG. The only exception to this would be Special Forces, SEALS, Rangers, SWAT teams, and the like, for obvious reasons.

Funny, I remember beingin basic training and chanting over and over again,"SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT THE SON OF A BI***, WE LIKE TO KILL WE LOVE TO KILL WE DO IT ALL THE TIME". - cadence

 

[marshaul]

imported post

And that's exactly why cops shouldn't be trained like the military.

 

[RebelHell]

imported post

And why the military shouldn't be used as a police force.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

RebelHell wrote:

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Cops train to shoot to kill.

No they don't my friend. They train the same as the military does, they shoot center-mass to stop the threat. Shooting center-mass on a most likely moving target gives the greatest possibility of stopping the BGs actions, period. Most of the time the BG will die from his wounds. But it is not with the INTENT of killing the BG. The only exception to this would be Special Forces, SEALS, Rangers, SWAT teams, and the like, for obvious reasons.

Funny, I remember beingin basic training and chanting over and over again,"SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT THE SON OF A BI***, WE LIKE TO KILL WE LOVE TO KILL WE DO IT ALL THE TIME". - cadence

You said it yourself....cadence.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

And that's exactly why cops shouldn't be trained like the military.

They train the same. I'm a Navy Instructor. Trained by civilian contractors....current and retired LEOs and military.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

RebelHell wrote:

And why the military shouldn't be used as a police force.

That I agree with 100%

 

[marshaul]

imported post

A rose by any other name...

What's the difference between using the military as police or training the police like the military?

 

[RebelHell]

imported post

Not so much a problem with that. The problem comes in when you send a military force into a war and treat like a police force and restrict them with the same rules. War is not and cannot be a "police action". It is war.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

RebelHell wrote:

Not so much a problem with that.  The problem comes in when you send a military force into a war and treat like a police force and restrict them with the same rules.  War is not and cannot be a "police action". It is war.

Oh, teaching civilian law enforcement to behave like a wartime military isn't a problem?

Tell that to Ryan Frederick.

 

[RebelHell]

imported post

marshaul wrote

Oh, teaching civilian law enforcement to behave like a wartime military isn't a problem?

Tell that to Ryan Frederick.

Hence my previous statement. I think you are getting where I was going with that now.

 

[Adam-12]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

autosurgeon wrote:

Just an FYI we don't shoot to KILL we shoot to stop the threat! Saying you shot to kill is a good way to make a trip to the big house!

Who's this "WE" you speak of kemosabe?? If someone is in my house threatening my family... I shoot to kill. I don't take any chances. If you're not thinking you're going to kill them... but instead, maybe just wing them...

When you're shooting to stop a threat, you aim for center of mass, or a head shot. You don't try to "wing" when you're shooting to stop a threat. There's a fair chance that the attacker may succumb to his injuries after you shoot to stop the threat, but at no point was it your wish for them to die. Your wish was for them to stop attacking you.

That's more than just legal mumbo-jumbo. Yes, legally, it makes a big difference whether your intent was to kill someone, or to stop a threat to your life--even if the shot hits center mass in either case. But it makes a difference more than legally. When he drops his weapon and falls to the ground, you stop shooting because the threat has ended, and that's all you wanted. If you were trying to kill him, you'd keep shooting even after he's down and the threat is neutralized.

 

[Adam-12]

imported post

Cops train to shoot to kill. Make no mistake about it...

I'm a Pennsylvania State Constable, not a cop, though our firearms training is similar to the PA Act 120 training that cops get. We are not taught to "shoot to kill." We're taught to end the threat, which generally means aiming for center mass or a head shot. As I said in my previous post, we do that for both legal and tactical reasons.

Legally, when the shoot is over and we're sitting in court, we want to make sure we're repeating like parrots, "He presented a lethal threat, and I used lethal force to end the threat," over and over. Under no circumstances do we ever want the jury to hear the words, "I tried to kill him" escape our lips.

Tactically, if we're thinking in terms of shooting to kill, we'll keep shooting even after the threat is ended--after all, he ain't dead yet! In over 3/4 of incidents where a LEO discharges a firearm, the attacker does not in fact end up dead. If he lives but stops his attack, it's a crime for the LEO to keep shooting.

It all comes down to: what question do you ask yourself between shots? If you ask yourself, "Is he still comin'?" then you're shooting to stop. If you ask yourself, "Is he still breathin'?" then you're shooting to kill. The former is self-defense. The latter is murder.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Actual police training experience at the academy... They no longer use the word 'fire' on the range. It was specifically explained, over and over again, that you will pull your weapon and fire when you hear the word 'gun,' not the word 'fire.' They drilled this hard over and over again.

It was later explained that the reason was, that if a gun is mentioned or seen, that you shoot. Period. Find a way to justify it later. It's just too dangerous not to. It was a change in the training designed specifically to train an officer to pull the trigger at the mere mention of a gun "for officer safety."

This is Official FDLE material. Go find it yourself, it's public. Anyone who has been through the academy in FL in the last 4 years has been through it first-hand. Most of the instructors and ROs I've met are quite proud of it. They even brag "It's nice to know that the State backs you no matter what you do, and they'll help you sort it out later."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Actual police training experience at the academy... They no longer use the word 'fire' on the range. It was specifically explained, over and over again, that you will pull your weapon and fire when you hear the word 'gun,' not the word 'fire.' They drilled this hard over and over again.

It was later explained that the reason was, that if a gun is mentioned or seen, that you shoot. Period. Find a way to justify it later. It's just too dangerous not to. It was a change in the training designed specifically to train an officer to pull the trigger at the mere mention of a gun "for officer safety."

This is Official FDLE material. Go find it yourself, it's public. Anyone who has been through the academy in FL in the last 4 years has been through it first-hand. Most of the instructors and ROs I've met are quite proud of it. They even brag "It's nice to know that the State backs you no matter what you do, and they'll help you sort it out later."

That is a depressing statement. I have no reason to doubt it, just hoping it's not true.

 

[nonameisgood]

imported post

You're searching someone, you find a pistol on his person, and tell your partner "gun", so the guy gets shot?

While I know that is not the intent, it seems like a dangerous plan to me. Train like you work.
--
Back OT: In 1997, a guy was shot in Dallas while trying to break down a door, in a drunken stupor he mistook it for his girlfriend's house. The occupant shot though the door, saying it was a "warning shot", but tagging the guy in the head. The initial reports said that the shooter thought he'd be well over the person's head, but the guy was "rather tall". Accidentally killing someone with a warning shot is enough reason to not use one.

And keep those warning shots low, people.

Edie Brickell & New Bohemians’ keyboardist Jeffrey Albrecht was shot to death on Monday morning in Dallas, Texas. The shooting happened as Albrecht was reportedly attempting to kick in the door of his girlfriend's neighbor, according to police. Dallas police spokesman Sgt. Gil Cerda has stated the girlfriend’s neighbor thought a burglar was attempting to break into the home and fired a shot through the door. The shooting happened at 4.m. on Monday. Albrecht, 34, was pronounced dead at the scene. The shooting is under investigation, and no arrest have been made. It is unclear why Albrecht was at the house.