California veteran shoots robbery suspect who pistol-whipped him at market

[MechAg94]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-veteran-store-clerk-shoots-kills-robbery-suspect-pistol-whipped.amp?__twitter_impression=true

A U.S. Air Force veteran working as a clerk in a northern California market shot and killed a robbery suspect Sunday after the perp clocked him in the head with his gun, according to reports.

There is video.  He is lucky he was able to get the gun out of a drawer.  Glad it had a good outcome.

[MechAg94]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/25/alleged-robber-gets-shot-with-357-magnum-on-christmas-eve/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Alleged Robber Gets Shot With .357 Magnum on Christmas Eve
An alleged robber in Dover, Pennsylvania, ignored a homeowner’s warnings and ended up being shot with a .357 Magnum.

I saw this one also.  This one isn't too complicated.  Please stop firing warning shots.  You are only going to get yourself into trouble. 

[230RN]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/25/alleged-robber-gets-shot-with-357-magnum-on-christmas-eve/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueI saw this one also.  This one isn't too complicated.  Please stop firing warning shots.  You are only going to get yourself into trouble.  

I'm not clear on what the problem might be with a warning shot into the air, with the very very slight chance of the bullet doing damage when it comes down.

I figure a charge of "illegally discharging a firearm" and ending the matter is better than a charge of manslaughter or murder in ending the matter.

If it doesn't work, the actual "deadly force" option remains.

... Or is that somehow simply "politically incorrect" for a gun forum?

Terry, 230RN
---------------------------------
Isn't it odd that all those paranoid people from the McCarthy-HUAC era turned out to be right?

[Ben]

JMO, but having a gun in your hand is the "warning shot" as far as I'm concerned. As the story said, the bad guy lunged before the warning shot, then again after. So the warning shot was a distraction to the person defending himself, because he took eyes off the situation.

If I have a gun drawn and you still want to attack me, I'm going to use it, cuz that's it's purpose, huh.

https://youtu.be/6vNRZCLgxng?t=64

Though in fairness there are some who say, "only pull your gun if you're going to pull the trigger" while I believe showing the gun can be a justifiable deterrent without ever pulling the trigger. Or a way to keep someone compliant till the cops arrive. But if I find a need to pull the trigger, the warning shot is going to COM if I can help it.

[zxcvbob]

JMO, but having a gun in your hand is the "warning shot" as far as I'm concerned. As the story said, the bad guy lunged before the warning shot, then again after. So the warning shot was a distraction to the person defending himself, because he took eyes off the situation.

If I have a gun drawn and you still want to attack me, I'm going to use it, cuz that's it's purpose, huh.

https://youtu.be/6vNRZCLgxng?t=64

Though in fairness there are some who say, "only pull your gun if you're going to pull the trigger" while I believe showing the gun can be a justifiable deterrent without ever pulling the trigger. Or a way to keep someone compliant till the cops arrive. But if I find a need to pull the trigger, the warning shot is going to COM if I can help it.

If you must fire a warning shot (I can see firing into soft ground in front of a dog) only do so if you would be justified in actually shooting, and then say you missed.  That should be much easier to defend legally.

[230RN]

Ben:

"So the warning shot was a distraction to the person defending himself, because he took eyes off the situation."

How do you figure that?  Would  you be taking an aimed shot into the sky or ground?  :)

[Ben]

Ben:

"So the warning shot was a distraction to the person defending himself, because he took eyes off the situation."

How do you figure that?  Would  you be taking an aimed shot into the sky or ground?  :)

Once your weapon is no longer pointed at the active aggressor, you have distracted yourself and put yourself at a disadvantage.

[230RN]

So you say.  I don't see it that way.  Sorry.

I'm also concerned with the logic behind, "If I draw my gun, I will need to shoot."  Sounds like one of those mindless mantras that sound good when you say them fast, but don't hold up in the real world.

[MechAg94]

I'm not clear on what the problem might be with a warning shot into the air, with the very very slight chance of the bullet doing damage when it comes down.

I figure a charge of "illegally discharging a firearm" and ending the matter is better than a charge of manslaughter or murder in ending the matter.

If it doesn't work, the actual "deadly force" option remains.

... Or is that somehow simply "politically incorrect" for a gun forum?

Terry, 230RN
---------------------------------
Isn't it odd that all those paranoid people from the McCarthy-HUAC era turned out to be right?

Legally speaking, firing a warning shot is often considered deadly force.  If you were justified in using deadly force, that may not matter, but it has come back to bite some people or so I have heard.  Were they running away when you shot in the air?  Also, what exactly are you firing at when you fire the warning shot?  What if you injure someone else either directly or via a ricochet?  And if you fire a warning shot using deadly force, did you not think deadly force was warranted? (a lawyer might twist that around). 

IMO, it just isn't worth doing.

[Ben]

I'm also concerned with the logic behind, "If I draw my gun, I will need to shoot."  Sounds like one of those mindless mantras that sound good when you say them fast, but don't hold up in the real world.

I never said that. I said some people say that.  I said showing a gun without firing can be a deterrent, but that if you are going to shoot, then shoot the bad guy.

[Hawkmoon]

Legally speaking, firing a warning shot is often considered deadly force. 

Actually, in many jurisdictions (including my home state, I believe) simply displaying a firearm (in a threatening manner, not wearing it in a holster while standing in line at Starbucks) is considered use of deadly force. Certainly, drawing a firearm in the course of an altercation is use of deadly force -- even if you don't fire a shot.

[Ben]

Actually, in many jurisdictions (including my home state, I believe) simply displaying a firearm (in a threatening manner, not wearing it in a holster while standing in line at Starbucks) is considered use of deadly force.

I should be clear that when I said "showing a gun" I didn't mean in the Homer Simpson sense. I meant in the "Crap, I might need to use my gun" sense. Which could be anything from moving the hand to the top of the holstered gun in case you need to draw because of imminent threat, to actually drawing and pointing with intent to defend yourself from imminent threat.

Certainly not this:

https://youtu.be/elDcYcpSI7s

[Hawkmoon]

I should be clear that when I said "showing a gun" I didn't mean in the Homer Simpson sense. I meant in the "Crap, I might need to use my gun" sense. Which could be anything from moving the hand to the top of the holstered gun in case you need to draw because of imminent threat, to actually drawing and pointing with intent to defend yourself from imminent threat.

Understood. I was responding to MechAg94:

Legally speaking, firing a warning shot is often considered deadly force.

I'm pretty certain that firing a warning shot IS considered to be use of deadly force in every jurisdiction in the United States. I'm pretty certain that drawing a gun and pointing it at someone or threatening to shoot them (even if done in self defense) is considered to be use of deadly force in every jurisdiction in the United States. Where it becomes less certain is "brandishing," which is not even defined or addressed in the statutes of many states. To me, "brandishing" means taking a gun (or any weapon) out and waving it around in a threatening manner -- like the kid in Ben's video clip. But in some states, merely placing your hand on the butt of a holstered firearm in a threatening manner, or just sweeping back your cover garment to reveal the gun in the holster in a threatening manner, is considered "brandishing" and is deemed to be use of deadly force.

We have fifty states plus the District of Columbia to deal with. Each has its own laws. There are no one-size-fits-all answers on questions like this.

[MechAg94]

I am not familiar with all the states.  I recall a Texas Law Shield video on use of a gun for defense in the home versus just out on your property.  Confronting a trespasser out on your property, it is okay to have a gun in hand or at-the-ready, but care should be taken not to point the gun at them or threaten to use it unless you are justified.  The fact that they are trespassing alone wasn't justification by itself. 

[230RN]

So you say.  I don't see it that way.  Sorry.

I'm also concerned with the logic behind, "If I draw my gun, I will need to shoot."  Sounds like one of those mindless mantras that sound good when you say them fast, but don't hold up in the real world.

Ben, those were two independent comments.  In the second paragraph I wasn't referring to what you said.  My bad, I should have put that in a separate post or indicated that more clearly.

[230RN]

Double post