Reckless behavior is reckless regardless of the results. People who think otherwise are the problem.
Conservative love government intrusion - just ask the Virginia probers.
I understand this guy.
- Thread starter Supernois
- Start date
Reckless behavior is reckless regardless of the results. People who think otherwise are the problem.
Conservative love government intrusion - just ask the Virginia probers.
LkWd_Don
Banned
Problem with that thinking is that Locks only keep Honest People Honest! Criminals will always find a way to get what they want.
LkWd_Don
Banned
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.
I fully support that concept.. I know that recently here in Washington State a woman heard potential burglars trying to break in through her doggy door, she grabbed her phone to call the cops and her revolver to confront the perps.. she tapped on the window to get their attention and showed off her revolver.. (Brandishing) and they fled.. She was not charged even though she could have been as there was clear evidence that the perps had been trying to break in when the Police showed up to take her complaint and she was on the phone with the Police as this was unfolding.
Danmc
New member
It is not right, but the lawyers will find a way to turn the shooter in to the bad guy. Brandishing; Use of Deadly Force; Discharging a Firearm Within City Limits; Disturbing The Peace....whatever they can come up with. The guy should have simply called 911 then yell out to the thieves, "Hey, the cops are on their way". Then just sit in your house and wait. Insurance is for vehicle damage/theft. When the laws are for the thugs, why risk going to jail, court, paying for lawyers, to defend yourself, lose your gun for something that you should not have to do? Oh, I agree, the guy should have been able to go out and start shooting the thieves as fast as he could, just to get rid of them. But it just doesn't work that way anymore. Sad.
wuzfuz
New member
As I understand the article, Mr. Trost could tell the miscredants were pointing at him. At night in the partial light. I see an arm extended in my direction , I must assume that person is aiming a handgun at me, thus making me fear for my life. I was taught that if you feel you must fire a warning shot, make it your second or third I believe the person who stated there might be gas lines or some such under your feet is advancing a totally bogus argument. I have worked traffic con trol on pipeline jobs, and I can guarantee you that not even the vaunted .50 BMG is going to penetrate soil to the depth that utilities are buried, and absolutely no handgun round can go three feet into the groundot in the real world, and the real world is not Hollywood.
What is really wrong with firing warning shots? Granted if he had hit anybody I could see why it might be okay to charge him but as it is?
With all due respect to those repliers who have nothing but praise for the shooter, Mama's quote is to the point and absolutley correct. Go ahead and fire your irresponsible and illegal warning shots--see you in jail eventually and, if you are lucky, it will not be for manslaughter.
MamaLiberty
New member
I didn't say a word about who's FAULT the theft would be. I don't have a clue what precautions this particular person might have taken to secure his property, and it is obvious that locks are no guarantee... but thieves are lazy and don't want to work too hard or run many risks most of the time. The more barriers and locks one uses, the less likely the property will be at risk of theft. And part of that is considering where you live. If the streets are hip to hip with thieves and muggers, it would seem like a good time to consider finding another place to live.
The question here was the "warning shot." If someone wants my property, they'll need to come THROUGH me to get it. No warning shots... If the sight of my drawn pistol isn't sufficient to turn them away in those few seconds, they will reap what they have sown. I won't shoot at someone not endangering my life, and I wouldn't shoot at someone turning away. Each one must decide that for themselves, of course... and live with the consequences.
LkWd_Don
Banned
Based upon your statement of having worked traffic control for underground pipeline work, you would most likely be talking about pipes that are buried under roadways and in order to keep from the lines being crushed by roadway traffic, they are generally much deeper than they would be in buried in a non-traffic residential area.
So, a bullet even from a 50cal may not be able to penetrate three feet, but are you also implying that penetration could not reach between one and two feet?
The utility depths in non-roadway residential area's are generally a reflection of how far down you have to go to get below the frost line. Which is why here in Western Washington State our water lines only need to be buried 18 inches where electrical or gas is generally only 2 feet. In some places such as the Sacramento California area, when I was installing utility lines for home service, I was surprised to find that gas lines on the owners property were only required to be between 14 and 18 inches and that is in non-rocky/non-sandy soil. (No Frost Line to worry about) So I will stand by my statement and will ask that before someone tries to correct me or tell me I am wrong, that they learn why utilities are required to be at differing depths and just how shallow some of those depths can be.
Here in Washington State RCW 19.122.033 specifies that any planned trenching or excavating below 12 inches requires that Utility Companies need to be notified so that they may perform a locate to insure that you are not going to hit a utility. RCW 19.122.033: Notice of excavation to pipeline companies. (<i>Effective until January 1, 2013.</i>) This is because years ago before Washington State followed specific depths standards and with property owners being known to regrade property elevations, effectively changing the depth of buried utilities, that one foot is as far as someone can legally dig without knowing what may be under the shovel.
Now, can a bullet (even from a .38 spec, .357cal or 9mm) potentially hit buried utility lines Gas, Electric or water if they can be found as shallow as one foot?
Last edited:
leadsender
New member
Redford, MI is a stones throw from where I live. I do understand the frustration that he feels. I have had personal cars stolen never to be found. My sister has had several cars stolen or broken into with costly damange. The very first rule that he broke was opening up his mouth. I am sure that he was told in his CPL that he should respectfully decline any comments to LEO's in the event a weapon is discharged and wait to speak to his lawyer. Since he did open up and said that he fired warning shoots he finds himself in trouble. It is illegal in MI to pull your weapon and fire warning shot(s) or to protect property. Had I shot at those people no one would have known about it. I would have got up in surprise to what happened to my truck and then called the police.
If a thief wants your car, no amount of "securing it" is going to help. Now, that said, I also know that in most places, you can't just shoot someone for robbery, as aggravating as that limit is. But what action CAN you take? Are you just limited to calling the police, and standing there while watching the thief drive away in your car?
I'm not firing warning shots at anybody. Discharging a weapon where I live is a crime. I actually don't know what I'd do, but I doub t very seriously I'd just stand there and watch someone drive off in my car.
What would YOU do?
I'm not firing warning shots at anybody. Discharging a weapon where I live is a crime. I actually don't know what I'd do, but I doub t very seriously I'd just stand there and watch someone drive off in my car.
What would YOU do?
localgirl
New member
Glad you asked. But this is just me, and my state.
I would strap on a sidearm, dial 911, and march outside while saying "Yeah, there's these dirtbags trying to steal my car. They're right in front of me. The first one is six-foot something, blue jeans, black jacket (etc.)..."
They're either going to leave or be intimidated by my brazenness and cower down to later be escorted away in a cop car. Or they're going to try to attack me, on my own property, in which case I've just become justified in shooting them. None of my actions or words are illegal, or even against a "duty to retreat" idea (which Idaho doesn't have anyway). And even if they were, a prosecutor would be very hard-pressed to prove that a licensed carrier, in an open carry state, on her own private property, was doing anything but taking the appropriate steps to protect her property and stop a crime.
Sometimes you have to think finesse instead of sheer power.
I would strap on a sidearm, dial 911, and march outside while saying "Yeah, there's these dirtbags trying to steal my car. They're right in front of me. The first one is six-foot something, blue jeans, black jacket (etc.)..."
They're either going to leave or be intimidated by my brazenness and cower down to later be escorted away in a cop car. Or they're going to try to attack me, on my own property, in which case I've just become justified in shooting them. None of my actions or words are illegal, or even against a "duty to retreat" idea (which Idaho doesn't have anyway). And even if they were, a prosecutor would be very hard-pressed to prove that a licensed carrier, in an open carry state, on her own private property, was doing anything but taking the appropriate steps to protect her property and stop a crime.
Sometimes you have to think finesse instead of sheer power.
fudo
New member
Well said. Sic 'em!
In an enlightened society an irresponsible act is just as irresponsible regardless of the results.
localgirl
New member
Jill Lepore just published an article in "The New Yorker" that basically said a civilization where we all have to walk around armed isn't civilized at all. Mostly it's anti-gun, but she's not stupid. She makes some good points. She just falls into the same trap a lot of people do--thinking that more restriction and less guns will equal less gun violence, forgetting that guns don't kill people, they just make it easier to kill people.
But isn't civilization just a thin veneer of manners over a pretty rough core anyway? Does it matter whether people behave because they are truly civilized or just because they are afraid of getting shot? If it works? And doesn't the State use that method all the time, i.e. police are armed?
BC1
,
He's stealing your stuff, you shoot, the legal bill is $70K. That's how it ends-up.
An old and somewhat suspect out of date law on the books but defendable when it happens in SC. AT NIGHT, if someone is fooling around at your car or anywhere for that matter where you have reasonable suspicion that he is in process of committing a felony, you can exercise a citizen's arrest and it that person decides to evade your citizen's arrest, you can use any means, including death, to stop the evasion. Interesting law that has been upheld, particularly in cases where car owner finds someone "diddling" with his car (again only at night) and tells him to stop and, under the presentation of a firearm, tells him to stand still til police get there--he can shoot him--it has happened and it has been upheld. The facts with a car become pretty reasonable as to presumption of a potential felony but in a zimmerman-type case--not so clear--where was the reasonable suspicion other than a hoodie?
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.