Never Fire a Warning Shot | Into the Fray - USCCA

[Jmac00]

wasn't there a girl in Florida or Arizona that got in a heated argument with her ex, she fired a "warning shot" and now is in jail for 20 years.

Never fire a warning shot, AMMO is too expensive for that shit

 

[Cooolone]

You will know when your life is in danger, there will be little question.

Little question (afterwards)... when there is only "ONE" side to the story!

 

[Mr. terzmo]

There are some definites:

Never Islam. It's oppressive to women and causes much pain and suffering upon this world.

There, I said it.

You can NEVER fix stupid

 

[SomeSoldier]

My Father taught me to fire the 1st warning shot into the center of the chest. That should give them plenty of warning that you mean business.

I am not saying your father was wrong. Just some thoughts in my head.

 

[spat]

I know from personal experience, that thinking can get you killed.
Know the laws, follow the laws and stay alive.
You will know when your life is in danger, there will be little question.

You may not realize all the circumstances in N.Y. that you are legally authorized to shoot. There are some that you would be legal, but I would not want to risk the fallout from, that's all I'm saying.

 

[@thewheels]

Your thinking is a little skewed... You are absolutely, with extreme prejudice, wanting to end a "threat" to your life by using "deadly" force! That means you intend to "kill", period! If you think sending one down the pipe at your target, stopping to look, wait and see if it caused the desired result, is going to work out well for you... You are in for a big surprise!

That's TV shit, right along with shooting the gun out of the attackers hand, or why didn't you shoot the attacker in the leg to stop him/her? If you "ever", heaven forbid, need to draw your weapon, you are deploying it to end a threat, and you shoot, and "keep" shooting until that threat is removed, period! Direct frontal assault, target turned, target falls, target whatever, you keep your firearm training on target and keep shooting, reload, shoot, shoot, shoot, until it is no longer a threat!

There's a mental preparation, and expectation of a course of action that should be imprinted in your mind if you are a person who carries a firearm. It shouldn't be playing paddycake or pussyfooting around, it shouldn't be worrying about the after affects other than that you'll be breathing tomorrow and the BG won't be. It should be about survival and animal instinct to "WIN" at any cost... Using a firearm is just a tool, but your "MINDSET" is what will win the day for you. This scenario should be played out in your head every time you holster that firearm, go to the range, training, etc.!

By programming your mind to think shoot once, or if I shoot the person on the ground it's a problem will and can cause you to hesitate, which will be problematic I can assure you. Once a firearm is drawn, is go time! No warning shot, no one and let's see, no thinking I just wanna scare someone!

Just sayin...

Good luck with your intent to kill defense. You'll be doing time. You're not out in the woods hunting deer.
I need to continue to protect and provide for my family so no warning shots from me and I'll shoot center mass until I deem the threat removed or stopped - however many shots that may be.
If the BG dies in the process or as a result than so be it. But it is not my intent to kill said BG.
And no where did I imply, that you should shoot only once and then wait to see what happens. Or try to shoot the gun out of the BG's hand or take a leg shot. Fuck that noise.

 

[Airborneguy]

I know from personal experience, that thinking can get you killed.

He’s right. The military (mostly the Marines) even teaches a course on this concept called Combat Hunter.

Numerous scientific studies have shown that certain decisions are made “better” when made quickly. Our brain is wired to make certain decisions this way, mainly those that involve threats. Overthinking is dangerous.

Of course it takes certain specific experience and knowledge to get to the point where “snap” decisions and “hunches” are likely to be your best course of action, but when that experience exists in your brain, science has proven that the brain wires itself to access that experience subconsciously.

Read the book “Left of Bang”. It’s a great lesson in this concept for those of us who cannot attend the Combat Hunter course.

I learned a lot about myself while reading it.

 

[Airborneguy]

To the topic, I fully agree: no warning shots ever. Warning shots are NEVER justified. During a lawless situation I’d do it, but not in the normal, real world.

My job only justifies the firing of a shot in one special case other than to end a threat: to summon assistance in a life or death desperate situation. The rule basically came out of 9/11 when cops who were trapped in the rubble fired their guns to attract rescuers.

 

[Criticalt]

You may not realize all the circumstances in N.Y. that you are legally authorized to shoot. There are some that you would be legal, but I would not want to risk the fallout from, that's all I'm saying.

As stated I know NY laws as well as any person alive, its not that hard.
The point of this conversation is self defense, not burglary, not helping someone else and not assisting an officer.
We are talking about warning shots when you, yourself are being assaulted.
To your point, I would not use a gun defending someone else unless the aggressor turned on me.
In close combat I can do more accurate damage with my hands.
The only other way I would draw a gun is if a police officer is being murdered. Not shot at, or chasing someone, but on the ground being murdered.

 

[Cooolone]

Good luck with your intent to kill defense. You'll be doing time. You're not out in the woods hunting deer.
I need to continue to protect and provide for my family so no warning shots from me and I'll shoot center mass until I deem the threat removed or stopped - however many shots that may be.
If the BG dies in the process or as a result than so be it. But it is not my intent to kill said BG.
And no where did I imply, that you should shoot only once and then wait to see what happens. Or try to shoot the gun out of the BG's hand or take a leg shot. Fuck that noise.

You are pretty good at making assumptions and misquoting what I wrote. There is no intent to kill. The instrument of your defense, the firearm, is only a tool. I could use my hands to defend as prescribed by law, but the firearm is more proficient. You are seriously confused, because even if I needed to use my hands, I would not stop until the threat was ended, regardless of "HOW" that happened. Unconscious, sure, that's great. Not breathing, well that works too. Do you think I'm required by law if using force to counter a "deadly" threat, that I some how stop, check and see if my defense worked mid-encounter? So if you come at me with a hammer, and I only have my hands, and I parry your attempted strike and smash your throat... Then the larynx immediately swells and closes and you suffocate... Should I have just tried to knock you out? Gimme a break!

You can do it your way, I'll do it mine, and take my chances with the 12 that'll judge me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep, or second guess my actions, or worry at all.

People have funny misconceptions and confuse idle threats with real ones... Situational awareness and threat assessment are vital to reaction time. And if you're thinking about consequences while processing a threat that's in front of you, good luck with that, and I honestly hope it turns out well for you. And don't mistake my post either for a willingness to get into mix-ups or beings tough guy, I'll walk away from any provocation and have countless times. I'm a lover (of life)! Especially my own!

 

[@thewheels]

You are pretty good at making assumptions and misquoting what I wrote. There is no intent to kill. The instrument of your defense, the firearm, is only a tool. I could use my hands to defend as prescribed by law, but the firearm is more proficient. You are seriously confused, because even if I needed to use my hands, I would not stop until the threat was ended, regardless of "HOW" that happened. Unconscious, sure, that's great. Not breathing, well that works too. Do you think I'm required by law if using force to counter a "deadly" threat, that I some how stop, check and see if my defense worked mid-encounter? So if you come at me with a hammer, and I only have my hands, and I parry your attempted strike and smash your throat... Then the larynx immediately swells and closes and you suffocate... Should I have just tried to knock you out? Gimme a break!

You can do it your way, I'll do it mine, and take my chances with the 12 that'll judge me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep, or second guess my actions, or worry at all.

People have funny misconceptions and confuse idle threats with real ones... Situational awareness and threat assessment are vital to reaction time. And if you're thinking about consequences while processing a threat that's in front of you, good luck with that, and I honestly hope it turns out well for you. And don't mistake my post either for a willingness to get into mix-ups or beings tough guy, I'll walk away from any provocation and have countless times. I'm a lover (of life)! Especially my own!

This is confusing:
You wrote: "You are absolutely, with extreme prejudice, wanting to end a "threat" to your life by using "deadly" force! That means you intend to "kill", period!"

And: "it shouldn't be worrying about the after affects other than that you'll be breathing tomorrow and the BG won't be."

How am I making any assumptions or misquoting based on these 2 examples? Sorry, but these sound like an intent to kill.
I'll have to doublecheck my math but IMO justified deadly force ≠ legalized execution

Look, I think we're mostly on the same page here or at least the same chapter. I'm sure we both agree that you can't stand over a BG that's down on the ground/floor, unconscious, well ventilated, bleeding profusely and from every orifice and then proceed to pump 2 or 3 more rounds of 00 into his chest or back. Or mag dump your 40 into his face, reload and repeat. Right?
My contention is that there's a line between removing/stopping the threat and executing the threat. And I don't care how much you practice and drill but when the shit starts, you won't be focused on that line in the slightest but I doubt you wouldn't know if you crossed it. So...just don't cross it. Wherever it is.

 

[Darth]

To the topic, I fully agree: no warning shots ever. Warning shots are NEVER justified. During a lawless situation I’d do it, but not in the normal, real world.

My job only justifies the firing of a shot in one special case other than to end a threat: to summon assistance in a life or death desperate situation. The rule basically came out of 9/11 when cops who were trapped in the rubble fired their guns to attract rescuers.

I can't believe that second one hah to be a law.

 

[Airborneguy]

Stupid but that’s what a hyper-litigious society leads to.

 

[Criticalt]

A criminal defense lawyer I know told me that in a self defense situation, for every magazine used after the first one, your chances of being found justified go down 50%.
So, if you use 2 mags, you have a 50/50 chance in court. If you use 3, youre done for.
Of course every situation is different but this is pretty accurate in his experience.
Prosecutors love it when defendants "reload" to continue their deadly assault.

 

[Edwardteach72]

A criminal defense lawyer I know told me that in a self defense situation, for every magazine used after the first one, your chances of being found justified go down 50%.
So, if you use 2 mags, you have a 50/50 chance in court. If you use 3, youre done for.
Of course every situation is different but this is pretty accurate in his experience.
Prosecutors love it when defendants "reload" to continue their deadly assault.

What how is this a thing. I would talk to a different lawyer this is stupid sounding.

Unless you are misquoting them, where is the data? 1 there is very few extended self defense shootings, but shit if I'm stuck in a (let' say) store and shit goes down and someone goes in on a shooting spree doesn' run off after (if) I return fire and god forbid some off chance a gun fight does happen and I am forced (thanks 11 rounds NY) to reload the following thing will be oh no second mag found he's probably going to jail

 

[Airborneguy]

I have to agree. Show me a criminal defense lawyer who:

A) has EXTENSIVE experience defending legal, armed, self-defense defendants...

B) In NY...

C) Where more than one mag was used.

...and I’ll slap my momma.

 

[Criticalt]

What how is this a thing. I would talk to a different lawyer this is stupid sounding.

Unless you are misquoting them, where is the data? 1 there is very few extended self defense shootings, but shit if I'm stuck in a (let' say) store and shit goes down and someone goes in on a shooting spree doesn' run off after (if) I return fire and god forbid some off chance a gun fight does happen and I am forced (thanks 11 rounds NY) to reload the following thing will be oh no second mag found he's probably going to jail

If you google 2nd amendment attorney or criminal defense attorney the firm he works for is right near the top.
He is licensed to practice law in numerous states and he and his coworkers have worked and won dozens of self defense shooting cases.
Its a huge national law firm with 100s of years combined experience with dozens of proven lawyers.
Anyways, like I said, this adage comes from his experience with 30 years in the business and dozens of coworkers nationwide. Its not a scientific statement, its an observation. You really need to comprehend a little better.
There really isnt many better people to talk to.

 

[Criticalt]

I have to agree. Show me a criminal defense lawyer who:

A) has EXTENSIVE experience defending legal, armed, self-defense defendants...

B) In NY...

C) Where more than one mag was used.

...and I’ll slap my momma.

National lawfirm, including NY.
I will say it again here.
This is not science, just an observation from a very experienced attorney.
The point is, prosecutors can use reloading as a major point with juries, its just something they do.

In fact, hes the one that pointed me to the "other" site, which led me here. I was looking for NYS gun law information. He gave me some good info, then told me to look for a NYS specific forum to keep up on laws and such.

 

[MikeyCNY]

National lawfirm, including NY.
I will say it again here.
This is not science, just an observation from a very experienced attorney.
The point is, prosecutors can use reloading as a major point with juries, its just something they do.

In fact, hes the one that pointed me to the "other" site, which led me here. I was looking for NYS gun law information. He gave me some good info, then told me to look for a NYS specific forum to keep up on laws and such.

I'm not going to say your lawyer friend is wrong, but from everything I've read (which is a lot) it comes down to JUSTIFICATION.

If you draw and fire two shots at someone running at you with a machete, (assuming innocence on your part etc) you are justified. If they "shake, shake, shake it off" and still run towards you, you can continue firing (hopefully while side-stepping, moving backwards etc). If while firing you experience a weapon jam, sometimes the quickest remedy is ejecting the mag and inserting a fresh one. If you are still justified in shooting, it shouldn't matter that you "reloaded".

I believe https://smile.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/1943809143/ has a section on it, but I can't check right now as I leave it at work for repeated readings. Maybe you had to reload due to a crowd. Or maybe you had to reload because this effin state limits you to 10 rounds and that wasn't enough to stop the threat.

Pizza deliveryman opens fire to fend off attackers <-- 4 attackers... 10 boolits might not be enough. (or less than 10 if you're carrying a more compact gun)

Although all of this is only pertinent in a 'free state'.. NY being NY... well....

(I also tried to do a search to find numbers, but I believe the number of CCWers who had to actually reload is so low the courts haven't addressed it much)

 

[MikeyCNY]

National lawfirm, including NY.
I will say it again here.
This is not science, just an observation from a very experienced attorney.
The point is, prosecutors can use reloading as a major point with juries, its just something they do.

In fact, hes the one that pointed me to the "other" site, which led me here. I was looking for NYS gun law information. He gave me some good info, then told me to look for a NYS specific forum to keep up on laws and such.

Just thought of something else, what does that attorney think of carrying a second firearm? Maybe a snubby revolver in an ankle holster?

 

[Cooolone]

This is confusing:
You wrote: "You are absolutely, with extreme prejudice, wanting to end a "threat" to your life by using "deadly" force! That means you intend to "kill", period!"

And: "it shouldn't be worrying about the after affects other than that you'll be breathing tomorrow and the BG won't be."

How am I making any assumptions or misquoting based on these 2 examples? Sorry, but these sound like an intent to kill.
I'll have to doublecheck my math but IMO justified deadly force ≠ legalized execution

Look, I think we're mostly on the same page here or at least the same chapter. I'm sure we both agree that you can't stand over a BG that's down on the ground/floor, unconscious, well ventilated, bleeding profusely and from every orifice and then proceed to pump 2 or 3 more rounds of 00 into his chest or back. Or mag dump your 40 into his face, reload and repeat. Right?
My contention is that there's a line between removing/stopping the threat and executing the threat. And I don't care how much you practice and drill but when the shit starts, you won't be focused on that line in the slightest but I doubt you wouldn't know if you crossed it. So...just don't cross it. Wherever it is.

I misread some of your posts, we are on the same page. lol, sometimes we read what we want! I don't imply after the guy is down, walking over and putting 2 more in him. But if he's down and has a gun in his hand and moves, it's certainly justified. But I can tell you I won't be thinking of nothing at all, except the the threat in front of me, period.

And honestly, in this god forsaken State, if anyone uses "deadly" force, with the exception of extreme cases, you're facing legal scrutiny and defense, along with civil action! we are all in the same shithole!

 

[Criticalt]

I'm not going to say your lawyer friend is wrong, but from everything I've read (which is a lot) it comes down to JUSTIFICATION.

If you draw and fire two shots at someone running at you with a machete, (assuming innocence on your part etc) you are justified. If they "shake, shake, shake it off" and still run towards you, you can continue firing (hopefully while side-stepping, moving backwards etc). If while firing you experience a weapon jam, sometimes the quickest remedy is ejecting the mag and inserting a fresh one. If you are still justified in shooting, it shouldn't matter that you "reloaded".

I believe https://smile.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/1943809143/ has a section on it, but I can't check right now as I leave it at work for repeated readings. Maybe you had to reload due to a crowd. Or maybe you had to reload because this effin state limits you to 10 rounds and that wasn't enough to stop the threat.

Pizza deliveryman opens fire to fend off attackers <-- 4 attackers... 10 boolits might not be enough. (or less than 10 if you're carrying a more compact gun)

Although all of this is only pertinent in a 'free state'.. NY being NY... well....

(I also tried to do a search to find numbers, but I believe the number of CCWers who had to actually reload is so low the courts haven't addressed it much)

It comes down to the jury and the prosecutors abily to make the jury believe you used excessive force.
Like Ive said a couple times, this is a saying, not case law. Basically for every magazine you load, it gets that much more difficult for a defense attorney to prove your justification, not impossible but more difficult.
Of course all cases are different. When he told me this we were talking about a single aggressor and a single victim.
Its not about the lawyer being right or wrong, its an adage they use around their offices.
Kind of like "In like a lion, out like a lamb". This doesnt mean that after every rough Autumn there absolutely, positively must be a an easy Spring.
Its a saying that very often comes true so it is repeated.

 

[Criticalt]

Just thought of something else, what does that attorney think of carrying a second firearm? Maybe a snubby revolver in an ankle holster?

Never talked about it but, he carries a Glock 19 with an extra magazine for a total of 31 rounds, he lives in Texas and Nevada off and on right now.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Ok so again what is the lawfirm and or lawyer that you talked to?

You can't say a reload is cutting your chances of winning a defensive shoot in half each time,

Either no clue what this person is talking about or you are misquoting them

 

[Cooolone]

If you are still justified in shooting, it shouldn't matter that you "reloaded".

10 rounds and that wasn't enough to stop the threat.

Lol, kinda what I was saying previously...

Basically for every magazine you load, it gets that much more difficult for a defense attorney to prove your justification

So if you're using you hands to stop the threat, are you only allowed to throw only one punch? One technique? Or ten maybe?... I don't believe this is correct, doesn't matter that a prosecutor will try to assign culpability by using information to exhibit you were "excessive" or reckless or even criminal... Of course they'll try to show to bad guy was just a good guy who disengaged and was trying to apologize when you "BLASTED" em'...

And yes, the incidence of reloading being used in SD situations is uncommon. Doesn't mean it wouldn't or couldn't be justified. As noted, mechanical failure, or heaven forbid, a tactical reload, because you lost count, and we all know the "disadvantage" we are placed in here in NY by the 10 boolit limit...

I usually carry at "least" 2 additional mags, sometimes 3, depending upon where I'm going to be doing or where I'll be. Is that qualifying some sort of "intent"? Or good preparation? It would be hard to qualify it as intent, when anyone could then question almost every single LE agent as to why they carry extra loads as a witness in their defense. Private citizens may have a higher burden of justification in using deadly force, but that doesn't mean their last bowel movement gets scrutinized too.

 

[Criticalt]

Lol, kinda what I was saying previously...



So if you're using you hands to stop the threat, are you only allowed to throw only one punch? One technique? Or ten maybe?... I don't believe this is correct, doesn't matter that a prosecutor will try to assign culpability by using information to exhibit you were "excessive" or reckless or even criminal... Of course they'll try to show to bad guy was just a good guy who disengaged and was trying to apologize when you "BLASTED" em'...

And yes, the incidence of reloading being used in SD situations is uncommon. Doesn't mean it wouldn't or couldn't be justified. As noted, mechanical failure, or heaven forbid, a tactical reload, because you lost count, and we all know the "disadvantage" we are placed in here in NY by the 10 boolit limit...

I usually carry at "least" 2 additional mags, sometimes 3, depending upon where I'm going to be doing or where I'll be. Is that qualifying some sort of "intent"? Or good preparation? It would be hard to qualify it as intent, when anyone could then question almost every single LE agent as to why they carry extra loads as a witness in their defense. Private citizens may have a higher burden of justification in using deadly force, but that doesn't mean their last bowel movement gets scrutinized too.

Holy shit!! Im done with this thread, some of you have serious comprehension problems.
I honestly dont understand what is going on here, is this the twilight zone?
This is not difficult stuff.

 

[JohnD13]

He only did it because he thought thst it sounded cool

Just like "this boy came over to pick up my daughter and I was cleaning my shotgun" type bull shit story

I was the father cleaning the shotgun. Only difference was I didn't know the kid was coming over.

Otherwise interesting thread here.

 

[Edwardteach72]

I was the father cleaning the shotgun. Only difference was I didn't know the kid was coming over.

Otherwise interesting thread here.

See this 100% believable

 

[Edwardteach72]

Holy shit!! Im done with this thread, some of you have serious comprehension problems.
I honestly dont understand what is going on here, is this the twilight zone?
This is not difficult stuff.

Hahahahaha yea ok.

So most of us kept trying to get more info other than your vague some lawyer for a large law firm (still waiting to hear which one) says if you ever reload you are probably going to jail

Hell I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if maybe you miss quoted the guy.
Nope you kept going on for a while about ohhh reload 50% of the time that person is going to jail, they will count how many mags are on the floor and just keep dividing your chances of staying out of jail in half.

Finally after a bit (well a good amount) of back and forth YOU FINALLY slip and say Well it' what he told me (still never said who) when I was talking to him about one super specific hypothetical. But yea it works for everything.


Nope sorry dude I won't miss you now that you have recused yourself

 

[Criticalt]

Hahahahaha yea ok.

So most of us kept trying to get more info other than your vague some lawyer for a large law firm (still waiting to hear which one) says if you ever reload you are probably going to jail

Hell I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if maybe you miss quoted the guy.
Nope you kept going on for a while about ohhh reload 50% of the time that person is going to jail, they will count how many mags are on the floor and just keep dividing your chances of staying out of jail in half.

Finally after a bit (well a good amount) of back and forth YOU FINALLY slip and say Well it' what he told me (still never said who) when I was talking to him about one super specific hypothetical. But yea it works for everything.


Nope sorry dude I won't miss you now that you have recused yourself

Because you dont undrrstand the conversation, I cannot explain it any better. More than half a dozen people have private messaged me saying drop it, the guy doesnt understand "sayings".
Seriously dude, ask someone else to read through this thread, they will explain it to you.