I understand this guy.


Supernois

New member
I can totaly understand what if did but, it is illegal. Man Charged for Firing Warning Shots

A Reford man faces charges after he fired several shots into the ground to scare off would-be car thieves.

Read more: http://wjbk.m0bl.net/r/z4lfj
 

I understand too, but in most places the law says you can't use deadly force to protect property, only life and limb (there are some exceptions). Even firing into the ground is displaying deadly force, and in some cases the bullets might end up where you didn't intend them.
 
Anti-gun lawyers and anti-gun politicians have seriously fk'd this country up.
The criminal scumbags have more rights than we do nowadays, it's absolutely disgusting.
In the good old days, this man would have gotten a pat on the back and been told "Good Job".
 
Anti-gun lawyers and anti-gun politicians have seriously fk'd this country up.
The criminal scumbags have more rights than we do nowadays, it's absolutely disgusting.
In the good old days, this man would have gotten a pat on the back and been told "Good Job".

+1 I agree bigtime
 
Unless one of his warning shots ended up killing or injuring an innocent person. Then he would have gotten a state appointed attorney.

Cop’s warning shot hits girl

A 12-year-old girl is receiving treatment in hospital after she was hit by a police bullet in Kamesh, Uitenhage...


An Uitenhage detective tried to apprehend a man for motor vehicle theft...


The man apparently resisted arrest and ran away.


In response, the detective fired a warning shot, which ricocheted and hit the girl's leg.
 
Unless one of his warning shots ended up killing or injuring an innocent person. Then he would have gotten a state appointed attorney.

Cop’s warning shot hits girl

If anyone is stupid enough to harm an innocent person with a 'wrecklessly fired' warning shot, then that individual deserves to be punished for his/her actions.
However, if another person fires a warning shot 'into the ground' for good reason and nobody is injured, then that individual should probably be given a pat on the back.
How typical of a LibTard like you 'n*g*ds' to always try to justify government intrusion at almost every level of our daily lives.
People with your mindest are part of the problem, not the solution i.m.h.o.
~SMFH~
 
If anyone is stupid enough to harm an innocent person with a 'wrecklessly fired' warning shot, then that individual deserves to be punished for his/her actions.
However, if another person fires a warning shot 'into the ground' for good reason and nobody is injured, then that individual should probably be given a pat on the back.
How typical of a LibTard like you 'n*g*ds' to always try to justify government intrusion at almost every level of our daily lives.
People with your mindest are part of the problem, not the solution i.m.h.o.
~SMFH~

I can understand the idea that if he does not know what is under his barrel.. he could be hitting a gas, sewer, water or electrical service and causing big time trouble.. but by firing into the ground, especially if he knows his shots are not going to do damage.. the most he should be cited for is discharge of a firearm.. and even then I think he had just cause.
 
1. You are completely responsible for each and every round fired from a gun you hold. PERIOD
2. Unless you are aiming at a known target, with a known backstop, you are at serious risk of placing a bullet where you don't want it. Every bullet fired HITS something. You actually have control of that.
3. The only rational reason to resort to deadly force... in this case to draw a gun - is if you reasonably expect to lose your life or suffer severe bodily harm (to you or another) if you do not immediately draw and fire.

So, if you have the time and opportunity to fire that "warning shot," it would indicate that you didn't really have legitimate cause to draw in the first place, _OR_ you are willing to give the person who threatens you time to do their worst in spite of your being armed.

Neither one works for me. If he doesn't want people to steal his stuff... he might consider securing it so it can't be stolen. Oh, and there are no guarantees. We make mistakes. I think this guy made a mistake. No need to make a federal case out of it since nobody was hurt. I just hope he chooses more wisely if given another opportunity.
 
1. You are completely responsible for each and every round fired from a gun you hold. PERIOD
2. Unless you are aiming at a known target, with a known backstop, you are at serious risk of placing a bullet where you don't want it. Every bullet fired HITS something. You actually have control of that.
3. The only rational reason to resort to deadly force... in this case to draw a gun - is if you reasonably expect to lose your life or suffer severe bodily harm (to you or another) if you do not immediately draw and fire.

So, if you have the time and opportunity to fire that "warning shot," it would indicate that you didn't really have legitimate cause to draw in the first place, _OR_ you are willing to give the person who threatens you time to do their worst in spite of your being armed.

Neither one works for me. If he doesn't want people to steal his stuff... he might consider securing it so it can't be stolen. Oh, and there are no guarantees. We make mistakes. I think this guy made a mistake. No need to make a federal case out of it since nobody was hurt. I just hope he chooses more wisely if given another opportunity.

+1
I'm not a cop. My job isn't to make an arrest or protect public safety.
My job is to stop the threat to me or to my family, and stay alive and breathing.
If I have time to rack the slide as some think is a good idea, fire a warning shot, prone the badguy out, or retreat from the encounter, my gun doesn't need to be out of its holster.
 
I can totaly understand what if did but, it is illegal. Man Charged for Firing Warning Shots

A Reford man faces charges after he fired several shots into the ground to scare off would-be car thieves.

Read more: http://wjbk.m0bl.net/r/z4lfj
I believe it's called brandishing.
 
1. You are completely responsible for each and every round fired from a gun you hold. PERIOD
2. Unless you are aiming at a known target, with a known backstop, you are at serious risk of placing a bullet where you don't want it. Every bullet fired HITS something. You actually have control of that.
3. The only rational reason to resort to deadly force... in this case to draw a gun - is if you reasonably expect to lose your life or suffer severe bodily harm (to you or another) if you do not immediately draw and fire.

So, if you have the time and opportunity to fire that "warning shot," it would indicate that you didn't really have legitimate cause to draw in the first place, _OR_ you are willing to give the person who threatens you time to do their worst in spite of your being armed.

Neither one works for me. If he doesn't want people to steal his stuff... he might consider securing it so it can't be stolen. Oh, and there are no guarantees. We make mistakes. I think this guy made a mistake. No need to make a federal case out of it since nobody was hurt. I just hope he chooses more wisely if given another opportunity.

Texas has it right. If they are stealing your stuff, they are a fair game target. If people don't want to get shot, they shouldn't be stealing. I think I would confront the idiot and place him under citizens arrest. If he then attacks me, he gets shot.
 
That's the problem in Michigan. We aren't allowed to defend our property. I worked my a@@ off for the things I have. Why should I let some dirt bag take/vandalis anything I own?
His mistake was reckless discharge of a firearm. Though, if if actually shot one of The DB's, he would have been arrested for murder because if walled out of his home with a firearm to confront said DB's.
 
I have learned the hard way if you draw your firearm you had better be really ready to shoot to kill someone. Being charged here, for pointing a firearm at someone has caused me a lot of problems and a lot of money defending myself against this lie. I was told it would have been better if I had just shot him dead.
 
I believe it's called brandishing.

Understood, but sometimes, (many times), brandishing a firearm 'can' save lives and prevent crime.

Case in point;
When I lived in Southern California, 4 hispanic gang bangers tried to assault/rob me one night at a drive thru ATM... I "Brandished" my Ruger .357 Magnum at them and they fled like scared little rabbits! :)

No shots needed to be fired, though I was definately prepared to pull the trigger if necessary.

Brandishing in itself should not 'automatically' be deemed illegal i.m.h.o.
 
Understood, but sometimes, (many times), brandishing a firearm 'can' save lives and prevent crime.

Case in point;
When I lived in Southern California, 4 hispanic gang bangers tried to assault/rob me one night at a drive thru ATM... I "Brandished" my Ruger .357 Magnum at them and they fled like scared little rabbits! :)

No shots needed to be fired, though I was definately prepared to pull the trigger if necessary.

Brandishing in itself should not 'automatically' be deemed illegal i.m.h.o.

In Oklahoma if them brown rabbits had complained to the cops here in Tulsa, they would have arrested you put you in jail, The District Attorney of Tulsa County would have charged you with a Felony pointing a firearm at a person. Trust me it's that dangerous to try protecting yourself in my state and my city. Better to just really shoot them dead.
 
If he doesn't want people to steal his stuff... he might consider securing it so it can't be stolen.

I take issue with this part of your post. HUGE issue, in fact. Your sentence defies reason or logic, to put it bluntly. If someone steals my property, it is most certainly NOT my fault. Regardless of whether I secured it. You can't have it both ways here - if someone is responsible for each and every action, including every shot they fire (which is true and accurate), then the thief (and the thief ALONE) is responsible for stealing. Me not securing it does NOT give him/her right to my things. Do you also tell women that if they don't want to get raped they shouldn't wear particular things? As if by wearing something, she's inviting a man to rape her? Your logic is ridiculous and flawed. Can you imagine a police officer telling a homeowner that's just been robbed that there's nothing they can do since the homeowner didn't lock his door, it gives everyone else the right to come take his things??
 
People need to visit my little crime infested cow town Tulsa, Oklahoma. The robbing thugs are running wild here, each day and each night it's more robbing more shootings more rapes. I say Greenday wrote a song about Tulsa, Oklahoma it's called "MURDER CITY" Trying to lock your stuff up and thinking it's gonna be safe is a real funny joke here.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top