[subego]

Grandfather Gets Arrested for Holding Burglar at Gunpoint While Waiting for Police to Arrive | The Stir

Gramps comes home, sees a burglar climbing out of his window, yells "freeze", fires a warning shot into the ground.

Gramps gets arrested for felony reckless conduct.

The charges have since been dropped (it is imagined because of public outcry).

Discuss.

My opinion: they shouldn't have been dropped. Potential deadly force is not to be used as a warning.

[Dork.]

The article doesn't say where in New Hampshire the house was. Some towns have strict ordinances against discharging firearms in town limits. There may be exceptions for self defense, but the local cops may not have had the authority to make that exception on their own. Arresting him may have been the only thing they could do given the facts at the time.

He may have been better off just showing the gun (assuming he was properly licensed) and not firing it.

At least they arrested the burglar as well!

[subego]

IANAL (obviously), but I don't think there's anywhere in the US where a warning shot is legal.

This seems like straight-up logic to me. If you feel safe enough to fire a warning shot then you don't pass the test for being in a situation in which you are allowed to wield deadly force.

Likewise, AFAIK, you can't shoot someone just for taking your stuff.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

IANAL (obviously), but I don't think there's anywhere in the US where a warning shot is legal.

This seems like straight-up logic to me. If you feel safe enough to fire a warning shot then you don't pass the test for being in a situation in which you are allowed to wield deadly force.

Why would a warning shot be different than any other type of shot? Especially in this instance, where the shooter intentionally shot into the ground? I'm no gun expert, but to me, that shows that the shooter is cognizant of the fact that stray bullets could end up anywhere, and he was being responsible. There are a few gun owners here, they probably know better then I do.

Likewise, AFAIK, you can't shoot someone just for taking your stuff.

In the moment, how could the shooter be sure that's all the robber did? He hit a few houses. Maybe the only reason the robber didn't injure someone in his house is because there was no one home?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Why would a warning shot be different than any other type of shot?

Bullets don't always go where you want them to.

My understanding is that the only time it is legal to discharge a firearm in uncontrolled circumstances is if you are in fear for your life. This goes for cops too.

If you're in fear for your life you don't shoot at the ground.

Edit: fear for someone else's life counts as well, and in both circumstances the fear needs to be immediate.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

In the moment, how could the shooter be sure that's all the robber did? He hit a few houses. Maybe the only reason the robber didn't injure someone in his house is because there was no one home?

I don't think "he may have done something else" has any legal legs.

Edit: I kind of misunderstood here. This goes back to what I said above. The burglar needs to do something that puts you in fear for your life. In fear for your life is past the point of feeling safe enough to fire a warning shot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you're in fear for your life you don't shoot at the ground.

Unless you're a coward conscientious objector, and unwilling to intentionally cause harm to someone else even when you ARE in fear for your life. Just like the stories of soldiers firing into the ground rather than shoot the enemy (a situation in which there is no doubt that one's life is in danger), the reliability of the killer instinct is not more than the reliability of aiming a pistol. I am sympathetic to your argument, but I have to disagree that someone in fear of their life can be relied on to follow through with deadly force when push comes to shove. Thankfully I haven't ever had to find out what I would do, but I wouldn't be surprised if I chickened out at the last moment and aimed away from a human target, even if it was "him or me."

[subego]

These are two different things.

The way you conscientiously object to harming a burglar is to not harm them.

As for not being able to kill someone at the last moment, that's not really the same as firing a warning shot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

These are two different things.

The way you conscientiously object to harming a burglar is to not harm them.

As for not being able to kill someone at the last moment, that's not really the same as firing a warning shot.

A distinction without a difference. If I chicken out and my would-be killshot goes into the ground, you can be darn sure that my explanation later would include the words "warning shot"

[subego]

And... you've just admitted to a felony.

Whereas if you could show there was a genuine threat, you'd walk.

[subego]

Also note, if the warning shots were legal people would claim the "my warning shot missed" defense when they actually hit someone. They could likewise claim their attempt to kill someone which missed was "just a warning shot".

[Uncle Skeleton]

That's why I don't think it's logical for the same action (missing the target) to be a felony if intentional but legal if unintentional.

[subego]

Umm... it's not legal if unintentional.

If you can't show you were in fear for your life you're probably going to get charged with attempted murder.

[Uncle Skeleton]

But in the situation where there actually is a legit threat, then if you use deadly force (and miss, or not, either way) it's legal but if you still use only a warning shot anyway, even if you could die for choosing to do that, then it's illegal (I think that's what you said right)? That's not logical.

[subego]

The law isn't meant to account for whacky outliers like this directly in the code.

I would assume if you could show you were in fear for your life as you would have to do if you had hit and killed the guy, the DA would have little interest in convincing a jury you were in the wrong.

However, if you weren't in fear for your life, that's a different situation. No?

[andi*pandi]

I think if there's any place in USA that a warning shot would be legal, it'd be NH or Texas. Heck, in Texas I think you're allowed to just shoot an intruder, no worries if your life was in danger or not... But just guessing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

However, if you weren't in fear for your life, that's a different situation. No?

That's fine. I maintain that in the code or out of it, you can't conclude that someone wasn't in justified fear for their own life simply because they intentionally missed.

I am divided on whether a warning shot should be legal absent imminent danger. Therefore, I would probably argue that a jury should decide on a case by case basis.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think if there's any place in USA that a warning shot would be legal, it'd be NH or Texas. Heck, in Texas I think you're allowed to just shoot an intruder, no worries if your life was in danger or not... But just guessing.

A quckie wiki says if you're in your house you can kill an intruder in most states.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's fine. I maintain that in the code or out of it, you can't conclude that someone wasn't in justified fear for their own life simply because they intentionally missed.

I don't think I am. What I'm doing is, in the absence of further information, assuming one uses the term "warning shot" to mean one is warning they will use deadly force. If one states they are willing to use deadly force, I submit it is a reasonable conclusion they would use it if in fear for their life.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I am divided on whether a warning shot should be legal absent imminent danger. Therefore, I would probably argue that a jury should decide on a case by case basis.

This makes no sense to me. If you (or someone else) are in no imminent danger what is the justification for using potentially deadly force to warn someone?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think if there's any place in USA that a warning shot would be legal, it'd be NH or Texas. Heck, in Texas I think you're allowed to just shoot an intruder, no worries if your life was in danger or not... But just guessing.

Looking closer at NH, if the burglar had done literally anything threatening, he could have legally blasted him, but the guy is pretty much quoted as saying the burglar didn't.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think I am. What I'm doing is, in the absence of further information, assuming one uses the term "warning shot" to mean one is warning they will use deadly force. If one states they are willing to use deadly force, I submit it is a reasonable conclusion they would use it if in fear for their life.

I think you did say that, when you said "If you're in fear for your life you don't shoot at the ground." Doesn't that mean you don't think warning shots should be allowed even in danger? If not, what does it mean?

This makes no sense to me. If you (or someone else) are in no imminent danger what is the justification for using potentially deadly force to warn someone?

It depends on how "potentially deadly" it really is, which depends on 100 circumstances that are specific to the crime, which is why I would defer to a jury independently for each case. If a gun is "potentially deadly" just for being fired into the ground, then why isn't it "potentially deadly" just for existing in the first place? Can you warn someone by brandishing a gun, rather than firing it into the ground? What exactly is the difference? What about a machete, a small knife, or a club? Or your fists? IMO, it's all along a sliding scale, and I am loathe to make sweeping statements beyond saying that I would want to decide each case independently (or leave a jury to do so no my behalf).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

A quckie wiki says if you're in your house you can kill an intruder in most states.

This was the impression I was under. Assuming the justification is that you don't know whether an intruder is intending to just rob you or to kill and/or eat and/or rape you and/or your family I don't see why it really matters if the intruder was halfway out the window and you were outside the house. He still might kill you to get rid of a witness or something.

Also proving or disproving the intent of whether or not a shot is a warning or a miss isn't really all that different from proving whether or not someone genuinely feared for their life. Either you take their word for it or you don't.

[ghporter]

Under what is called the "castle doctrine," the use of deadly force to defend one's home is justified. In states that fully implement this doctrine, it rests on the state to show reason to doubt that the homeowner was acting appropriately rather than for the homeowner to justify his actions. In many states, defending one's home includes limited actions taken outside the dwelling. In a recent case here in San Antonio, a man was charged with murder after shooting another man he had chased out of his house. I haven't found out how that one came out...the first trial ended in a mistrial.

Castle says that there is, unlike as many states had elected into law (particulary Florida) a "duty to withdraw," or basically flee from one's home if threatened by an intruder. That did not sit well with most Texans, but the castle doctrine was only recently fully set out in state law.

Texas concealed carry holders are specifically forbidden from using warning shots while carrying for the reason subego stated earlier: bullets tend to do things other than what the shooter intends. CHL holders are educated in Texas law regarding carrying and deadly force, and are tested on how accurate they are with their handgun, but a "warning shot" is by definition NOT aimed fire, so it becomes a random shot - and thus dangerous and unacceptable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think you did say that, when you said "If you're in fear for your life you don't shoot at the ground." Doesn't that mean you don't think warning shots should be allowed even in danger? If not, what does it mean?

Huh?

How is whether I think they should be allowed or not relevant to the statement "one cannot conclude that someone wasn't in justified fear for their own life simply because they intentionally missed"? This is what I was responding to.

I think they shouldn't be allowed, but I have repeatedly said this is because putting a whacky outlier into law will cause people to game the system.

Also note the quote you pulled was in response to the question "how is a warning shot different from any other type of shot". As I stated above, a "warning shot" is to warn someone of your willingness to use deadly force.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It depends on how "potentially deadly" it really is, which depends on 100 circumstances that are specific to the crime, which is why I would defer to a jury independently for each case. If a gun is "potentially deadly" just for being fired into the ground, then why isn't it "potentially deadly" just for existing in the first place?

In the simplest terms, one involves a hunk of of lead moving at supersonic speed and one doesn't.

I'll repeat this again; bullets don't always go where you want them to go. They can ricochet off a buried rock, into the apartment building a quarter-mile away, and explode a sleeping infant's skull.

Society is willing to accept that risk if you are in immediate danger of bodily harm, they do not support it as a risk from a warning by someone who is in no immediate danger.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can you warn someone by brandishing a gun, rather than firing it into the ground? What exactly is the difference? What about a machete, a small knife, or a club? Or your fists?

None of these things are warning shots.

If you swing at someone who is in striking range with a machete and miss, that is either perfectly legal, assault with a deadly weapon, or even attempted murder, depending upon whether you were in fear for your life and the disposition of the person being attacked.

If you swing at someone who is in striking range with your fists and miss, that is either perfectly legal, assault, or attempted murder, depending upon whether you were in fear for your life and the disposition of the person being attacked.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

IMO, it's all along a sliding scale, and I am loathe to make sweeping statements beyond saying that I would want to decide each case independently (or leave a jury to do so no my behalf).

Again, totally senseless to me.

While I wouldn't go so far as to make it illegal for people unwilling to use deadly force to have a gun, if you're not willing to use deadly force you are being egregiously irresponsible in attempting to defend yourself with an instrument of deadly force. I see no reason to go out of my way to accommodate these people, especially when the net result would be 10 times the amount of people using said accommodation to game the system.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Grandfather Gets Arrested for Holding Burglar at Gunpoint While Waiting for Police to Arrive | The Stir

Gramps comes home, sees a burglar climbing out of his window, yells "freeze", fires a warning shot into the ground.

Gramps gets arrested for felony reckless conduct.

The charges have since been dropped (it is imagined because of public outcry).

Discuss.



My opinion: they shouldn't have been dropped. Potential deadly force is not to be used as a warning.

Gramps saw the burglar coming out of a neighbor's house, not his. Castle doctrine wouldn't apply here, as one only has a right to defend one's own property, at least in MI. He's very lucky the charges got dropped. One can't simply play vigilante cop unless one is 100% certain his life is in danger and a reasonable person (jury) would come to the same conclusion.

[subego]

In NH, you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force anywhere you have a right to be.

As I said above, had the burglar put the gramps in a position where he felt he needed to defend himself, gramps could have put one between the burglar's eyes and not even needed a lawyer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Also proving or disproving the intent of whether or not a shot is a warning or a miss isn't really all that different from proving whether or not someone genuinely feared for their life. Either you take their word for it or you don't.

Maybe. We don't know much about proving whether a shot was a warning or not because people don't usually try to prove they committed a felony.

Regardless, I may not have this argument fully formed, but it strikes me this statement is holding water because it's been stripped of context. In actual "fear for your life" scenarios things like the size of the shooter versus the shootee, their placement (which can often be determined forensically), the placement of the bullets, and whether the shootee had a weapon tend to corroborate the shooters claim (or not, as the case may be). With a warning shot you only have bullet placement to corroborate.

[Dork.]

I think that if the burglar were smart, when Gramps fired the warning shot the burglar should have ran. As much as the warning shot said "I have a gun and I'm not afraid to use it", the fact of the matter is that if he had shot the burglar, he would be in a whole other place legally. Even if the laws in NH were that the shooter's actions could be justified, there would probably have been charges and a trial.

Again, I am assuming Gramps is familiar with gun laws and how they apply to him. So, he may have made the warning shot as a show of force, because he had no intent to go further into legal hot water by shooting the burglar. So scaring him with a warning shot may have been Gramps' only shot (edit: no pun intended. Hah!) of detaining him until the cops came.

I know I am making an awful lot of assumptions about Gramps and giving him the benefit of the doubt. But in my limited experience, nobody manages to accumulate that many guns without being intimately aware of the laws governing where and when they can discharge them.

[OldManMac]

Don't follow someone who invaded your home.

Suspected of murder, Milan home invasion victim in custody | News - Home

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So scaring him with a warning shot may have been Gramps' only shot (edit: no pun intended. Hah!) of detaining him until the cops came.

I think this is one of the key questions.

Should a citizen be able to detain a nonviolent criminal with force?

My gut says no.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Huh?

How is whether I think they should be allowed or not relevant to the statement "one cannot conclude that someone wasn't in justified fear for their own life simply because they intentionally missed"? This is what I was responding to.

There is apparently a huge miscommunication here, I just don't know what it is. I think what you said is that warning shots shouldn't be allowed because they would never exist if someone really feared for their life, which you know because they wouldn't intentionally miss if it were true. The relevance is unmistakable. I know things can be taken out of context to distort their meaning, but I don't see how any statement in this thread has been taken out of context. Little help?

I think they shouldn't be allowed, but I have repeatedly said this is because putting a whacky outlier into law will cause people to game the system.

I am saying they should be allowed only in as much as a jury or judge would decide in each case, after the fact (after all players are committed to their story). But codification cuts both ways; the code should not rule out warning shots either. As stated in the post that started this string, why should warning shots be different from other types of shots?

Also note the quote you pulled was in response to the question "how is a warning shot different from any other type of shot". As I stated above, a "warning shot" is to warn someone of your willingness to use deadly force.

Which means what? I don't understand why that matters.

In the simplest terms, one involves a hunk of of lead moving at supersonic speed and one doesn't.

I'll repeat this again; bullets don't always go where you want them to go. They can ricochet off a buried rock, into the apartment building a quarter-mile away, and explode a sleeping infant's skull.

Society is willing to accept that risk if you are in immediate danger of bodily harm, they do not support it as a risk from a warning by someone who is in no immediate danger.

Here is one miscommunication at least that CAN be identified. I distinctly said that there IS immediate danger. Suppose I am in immediate danger. Now suppose I have two options. A) shoot to kill, or B) warning shot. If I choose A then I might or might not disable the intruder. If I choose B then I might or might not scare the intruder away. Believe it or not, some people just don't have the stomach for A, and B at least is better than nothing.

Note: not all people in this circumstance are gun owners. When danger arrives, you might find yourself in possession of someone else's gun.

What's unreasonable to me is that you would vilify someone for choosing B over A. To me, A has many disadvantages for society, and only one advantage, and that advantage is for the shooter not for bystanders (or the intruder). If the shooter decides that A is not even better for themselves, it's bizarre to me that we should want to influence them to choose A anyway. If, as you say, society is willing to accept the risks of flying bullets "if you are in immediate danger," it should not matter whether that bullet was fired with the intention of harm or warning, and if it does matter then if anything the latter has distinct advantages, as stray bullets at "killing level" are more likely to find their way to innocent bystanders than bullets fired towards the ground are.

While I wouldn't go so far as to make it illegal for people unwilling to use deadly force to have a gun, if you're not willing to use deadly force you are being egregiously irresponsible in attempting to defend yourself with an instrument of deadly force. I see no reason to go out of my way to accommodate these people, especially when the net result would be 10 times the amount of people using said accommodation to game the system.

This strikes me as backward, since you have repeatedly stated that in this case the old man would be better off if he had killed the burglar/witness than for doing what he did. You say he has to be in danger, but how can you prevent the very same gaming of the system, when it's the victors that write history? I applaud any concern for unintended consequences, but when we're already in a situation where killing the burglar dead is more advantageous than firing a warning shot and waiting for the police to arrive, the horse has already fled the barn, gaming-wise.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think that if the burglar were smart, when Gramps fired the warning shot the burglar should have ran.

I disagree. The biggest risk of obeying gramps is a few years jail time, while the biggest risk of fleeing is instant death. And armed old people defending their territory are unpredictable... brinksmanship with them is a bad gamble. There is no way I would take so much extra risk on the chance that gramps would change course and start acting with appropriate caution in time to spare my life.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There is apparently a huge miscommunication here, I just don't know what it is. I think what you said is that warning shots shouldn't be allowed because they would never exist if someone really feared for their life, which you know because they wouldn't intentionally miss if it were true. The relevance is unmistakable. I know things can be taken out of context to distort their meaning, but I don't see how any statement in this thread has been taken out of context. Little help?

What you think I'm saying: warning shots shouldn't be allowed because they would never exist if someone really feared for their life.

What I am saying: in the absence of further information, what the term "warning shot" means is "I am willing to use deadly force". It is the people who have stated they are willing to use deadly force who do not shoot into the ground if they are in fear for their life.

Another way of putting this is your scenario does not fit the strict definition of "warning shot". What exactly is the person warning of? That they'll miss again?

Of course the criminal may not know your intent, but I submit it's the intent of the shooter that matters. Firing a warning shot and firing something you think will be interpreted as a warning shot are two entirely different things. The statement of mine you are focusing on was meant only to apply to the former.

More to come...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Here is one miscommunication at least that CAN be identified. I distinctly said that there IS immediate danger. Suppose I am in immediate danger. Now suppose I have two options. A) shoot to kill, or B) warning shot. If I choose A then I might or might not disable the intruder. If I choose B then I might or might not scare the intruder away. Believe it or not, some people just don't have the stomach for A, and B at least is better than nothing.

Note: not all people in this circumstance are gun owners. When danger arrives, you might find yourself in possession of someone else's gun.

What's unreasonable to me is that you would vilify someone for choosing B over A. To me, A has many disadvantages for society, and only one advantage, and that advantage is for the shooter not for bystanders (or the intruder). If the shooter decides that A is not even better for themselves, it's bizarre to me that we should want to influence them to choose A anyway. If, as you say, society is willing to accept the risks of flying bullets "if you are in immediate danger," it should not matter whether that bullet was fired with the intention of harm or warning, and if it does matter then if anything the latter has distinct advantages, as stray bullets at "killing level" are more likely to find their way to innocent bystanders than bullets fired towards the ground are.

I really (and honestly ) apologize for this misunderstanding forcing such an extensive response, however I've addressed this.

If you can show you were in fear for your life (which you'd have to do if it was legal, no?) the DA won't prosecute you if only for the fact DAs hate loosing.

So, let's say the DA does prosecute. Then it goes to a jury, which is what you want, right?

Nothing seems broken here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This strikes me as backward, since you have repeatedly stated that in this case the old man would be better off if he had killed the burglar/witness than for doing what he did. You say he has to be in danger, but how can you prevent the very same gaming of the system, when it's the victors that write history? I applaud any concern for unintended consequences, but when we're already in a situation where killing the burglar dead is more advantageous than firing a warning shot and waiting for the police to arrive, the horse has already fled the barn, gaming-wise.

I addressed this upthread. There tends to be physical evidence which either corroborates the story or not. Size of the people involved, where the bullets end up, the distances involved (which can often be determined from where the bullets end up), whether the perp had a weapon, etc., etc.

For example, in this particular case, a body full of holes halfway through a window would tend to counter any claim the deceased was posing an immediate threat.

The same goes for a bunch of entry wounds in the back, say if the burglar was running away.

In either of these circumstances, gramps better hope he likes breaking rocks at the quarry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What's unreasonable to me is that you would vilify someone for choosing B over A. To me, A has many disadvantages for society, and only one advantage, and that advantage is for the shooter not for bystanders (or the intruder).

I don't want to withdraw my previous point, but this is a good question which deserves a more comprehensive answer.

Which I'm writing now.

[screener]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think this is one of the key questions.

Should a citizen be able to detain a nonviolent criminal with force?

My gut says no.

Sure, let 'em go with your stuff.
Freaking liberals.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What's unreasonable to me is that you would vilify someone for choosing B over A. To me, A has many disadvantages for society, and only one advantage, and that advantage is for the shooter not for bystanders (or the intruder). If the shooter decides that A is not even better for themselves, it's bizarre to me that we should want to influence them to choose A anyway. If, as you say, society is willing to accept the risks of flying bullets "if you are in immediate danger," it should not matter whether that bullet was fired with the intention of harm or warning, and if it does matter then if anything the latter has distinct advantages, as stray bullets at "killing level" are more likely to find their way to innocent bystanders than bullets fired towards the ground are.

Okay. Here are some of the societal advantages to A:

The first is simplicity. I don't think this should be underestimated in light of the fact most US citizens have a right to bear an instrument of deadly force. The "rules" as it were, shouldn't be complicated. The current system is the model of simplicity. In an uncontrolled environment, you may discharge a firearm only with the intent to kill someone who puts you or someone else in immediate fear for their life. Period. End of rules. Works in all 50 states.

It should also be said this rule overlaps precisely with what the instrument is designed to do. No more, no less.

In a more cynical vein, I'd say the death of people who put others in fear for their life has value to society.

I have already noted that the system has some means to accommodate people who choose B, so while our current system (which encourages A) isn't ideal, at least it's not so broken as to make B guaranteed time in the pokey. I've also noted B is an outlier.

My overall theme though is the old saw "morality is a rapier, the law is a club". You are absolutely right in a moral sense, but the question is implementation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Another way of putting this is your scenario does not fit the strict definition of "warning shot". What exactly is the person warning of? That they'll miss again?

They're bluffing. They are warning of something that they aren't prepared to do, in hopes that the audience won't know they aren't prepared to do it. I don't see anything wrong with doing that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I really (and honestly ) apologize for this misunderstanding forcing such an extensive response, however I've addressed this.

If you can show you were in fear for your life (which you'd have to do if it was legal, no?) the DA won't prosecute you if only for the fact DAs hate loosing.

So, let's say the DA does prosecute. Then it goes to a jury, which is what you want, right?

Nothing seems broken here.

But also nothing says that "warning shots" are worse things than kill shots. Where I'm confused is in how you add that component into the narrative.

I addressed this upthread. There tends to be physical evidence which either corroborates the story or not. Size of the people involved, where the bullets end up, the distances involved (which can often be determined from where the bullets end up), whether the perp had a weapon, etc., etc.

For example, in this particular case, a body full of holes halfway through a window would tend to counter any claim the deceased was posing an immediate threat.

The same goes for a bunch of entry wounds in the back, say if the burglar was running away.

In either of these circumstances, gramps better hope he likes breaking rocks at the quarry.

I submit that you are letting yourself become the victim of CSI syndrome (too much faith in the magical abilities of forensics). Here's another scenario... the grandpa now knows that warning shots will get him in trouble, so instead of any warning he simply shoots to kill while the burglar is a sitting duck up on the ladder. He calls the neighbor who is thrilled at the news, and the two of them dispose of the body. The missing burglar can't be investigated, because burglars don't tend to leave notes about where they were headed. Now instead of the authorities playing an integral role in justice, they won't even know that a crime was committed. Now instead of a bullet having a 1:10,000 chance of ricocheting off the ground into someone, it has a 1:100 chance of missing the burglar and flying (farther) directly into someone. How is this better?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay. Here are some of the societal advantages to A...

Interesting...

The first is simplicity. I don't think this should be underestimated in light of the fact most US citizens have a right to bear an instrument of deadly force. The "rules" as it were, shouldn't be complicated. The current system is the model of simplicity. In an uncontrolled environment, you may discharge a firearm only with the intent to kill someone who puts you or someone else in immediate fear for their life. Period. End of rules. Works in all 50 states.

It should also be said this rule overlaps precisely with what the instrument is designed to do. No more, no less.

I'm not very convinced by this. What about hunting, or targets? I think the/an alternative is just as simple: if you kill someone on purpose, it's murder, and if you kill them by accident it's manslaughter. If you recklessly endanger people but are lucky enough not to kill them, it's reckless endangerment. There isn't a different punishment for manslaughter by gun or by knife. The intended purpose of guns (and knifes, arrows, spears, etc) is still just as relevant.

Reasonable people can disagree about what's truly reckless and what isn't, but I approve of this because it already starts out as a debate about the true issue. The same isn't true IMO about whether warning shots in and of themselves are a valid option.

In a more cynical vein, I'd say the death of people who put others in fear for their life has value to society.

Nice try If vigilantism was a good thing, then this thread wouldn't have been started. And if killing a burglar is good, then warning shots leading to lawful arrest is even better (it has the best of both: it leverages the availability of civilians and the uniformity of courts).

I have already noted that the system has some means to accommodate people who choose B, so while our current system (which encourages A) isn't ideal, at least it's not so broken as to make B guaranteed time in the pokey. I've also noted B is an outlier.

I guess I'm still confused because if you hadn't singled out warning shots by creating a distinction in the first place, no accommodation would be needed. This is where I came into the thread. I don't disagree at all that the question of whether civilians should be allowed to use force to detain non-violent criminals is a hard question, and I don't even have an answer to it. But the tangent of whether warning shots themselves are bogus (while kill shots aren't), I do have an opinion

My overall theme though is the old saw "morality is a rapier, the law is a club". You are absolutely right in a moral sense, but the question is implementation.

So true. Personally, I wish there was more room for vigilantism in our society, but I do recognize the dangers of it and this is really one of those times where simplicity is more than a convenience, it's a necessity. We simply can't let people take justice into their own hands, not without holding them accountable for their own actions. Vigilantism is one of those times where a slippery slope really is slippery, because you lose control of decision-making, no different than losing control to gravity and friction. But if anything, this argument would put warning shots above kill shots, not vice versa. I still don't see any reason why warning shots should be more egregious.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They're bluffing. They are warning of something that they aren't prepared to do, in hopes that the audience won't know they aren't prepared to do it. I don't see anything wrong with doing that.

It sounds to me like the issue here is you have been taking my response to the question "what is the difference between a warning shot and any other kind of shot" as an answer to the question "what is wrong with a warning shot".

In explaining the difference, I pointed out that if you are in fear for your life, you do not warn.

You have pointed out people may bluff. That is absolutely correct, but is not relevant to the question of the difference between a warning shot and any other type of shot, because a bluff isn't the same thing a warning shot. You may not agree with my analysis of the meaning, but that was the meaning I was using when I made the statement. IOW, the statement did not, and was not meant to address bluffing.

Make sense?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise, AFAIK, you can't shoot someone just for taking your stuff.

You can in Texas.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But also nothing says that "warning shots" are worse things than kill shots. Where I'm confused is in how you add that component into the narrative.

Assuming you are talking about warning shots meaning actual warning shots (i.e. a declaration of an intent to use deadly force), what makes them worse is they have a less strict and more complex test than a kill shot, thus giving you more lead flying around, and a more difficult adjudication process.

If the argument is the test can be just as strict, then I argue it would only affect your bluffer outlier because everyone else would just shoot to kill, since they're afraid for their life.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I submit that you are letting yourself become the victim of CSI syndrome (too much faith in the magical abilities of forensics).

This is possible, but to be fair, I said "tends to", and my understanding is that the police are pretty good at determining the specific things I listed. As for your scenario, I submit the legalization of warning shots would have negligible effect on those willing to commit murder and hide a body.

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You can in Texas.

I thought that was only if both you and the perp were in your house.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not very convinced by this. What about hunting, or targets? I think the/an alternative is just as simple: if you kill someone on purpose, it's murder, and if you kill them by accident it's manslaughter. If you recklessly endanger people but are lucky enough not to kill them, it's reckless endangerment. There isn't a different punishment for manslaughter by gun or by knife. The intended purpose of guns (and knifes, arrows, spears, etc) is still just as relevant.

I'm totally confused here. From where I'm standing, you ignore I'm addressing hunting and targets (controlled circumstances) to provide a more complicated system which doesn't even address the whole point: self defense. Under your system as written here, self defense, which is killing someone on purpose, is murder.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Nice try If vigilantism was a good thing, then this thread wouldn't have been started. And if killing a burglar is good, then warning shots leading to lawful arrest is even better (it has the best of both: it leverages the availability of civilians and the uniformity of courts).

I don't think killing a burglar is good, and I don't think self defense is vigilantism, so I guess I'm confused here too...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought that was only if both you and the perp were in your house.

It's more complicated than that. There is a rather long list of situations where use of deadly force is legally justified.

Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property

It does get complicated when (2)(A) or (2)(B) are involved.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's more complicated than that. There is a rather long list of situations where use of deadly force is legally justified.
It does get complicated when (2)(A) or (2)(B) are involved.

Indeed. It would appear that, especially at nighttime, deadly force is justified whenever someone is illegally in your home.

[subego]

Criminal mischief?

BLAM! BLAM!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

It sounds to me like the issue here is you have been taking my response to the question "what is the difference between a warning shot and any other kind of shot" as an answer to the question "what is wrong with a warning shot".

Indeed I was. In re-reading the original exchange, it still looks to me like that is what you were saying. If it's not, I'll take your word for it.

In explaining the difference, I pointed out that if you are in fear for your life, you do not warn.

What if you're in fear for being in fear for your life? Certainly bad guys sometimes/often warn. Why wouldn't good guys also warn? If I can recognize that I am not in danger but in one split second more, I will be, shouldn't I be allowed to prevent that danger? Even if doing so carries a <.001% chance of being accidentally deadly?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Assuming you are talking about warning shots meaning actual warning shots (i.e. a declaration of an intent to use deadly force), what makes them worse is they have a less strict and more complex test than a kill shot, thus giving you more lead flying around, and a more difficult adjudication process.

If people are going to game the system in order to get away with warning shots, they're going to game it to get away with kill shots too. Suppose gramps knows that warning shots will not be tolerated... why wouldn't he be able to position himself in mortal danger range of the burglar before shooting to kill? In addition to raising the ante of vigilantism, this would undoubtedly increase the number of stray bullets, as it takes more bullets on average to hit a target than to hit the ground, and those bullets have a longer range (even the ones that hit the target). I guess what I'm saying is do you have any evidence in support of your claim that declaring warning shots to be worse than killshots would reduce the amount of collateral damage?

If the argument is the test can be just as strict, then I argue it would only affect your bluffer outlier because everyone else would just shoot to kill, since they're afraid for their life.

I don't think the bluffer is as uncommon as you do. Is there any evidence about this? My feeling is that more people than not would fail to follow through with their "internet tough guy" routine when the poo hits the fan. I consider people to be entirely unreliable when they're under that much stress.

This is possible, but to be fair, I said "tends to", and my understanding is that the police are pretty good at determining the specific things I listed. As for your scenario, I submit the legalization of warning shots would have negligible effect on those willing to commit murder and hide a body.

It's not murder if you don't get caught

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Indeed I was. In re-reading the original exchange, it still looks to me like that is what you were saying. If it's not, I'll take your word for it.

Indeed it was.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

IWhat if you're in fear for being in fear for your life? Certainly bad guys sometimes/often warn. Why wouldn't good guys also warn? If I can recognize that I am not in danger but in one split second more, I will be, shouldn't I be allowed to prevent that danger? Even if doing so carries a <.001% chance of being accidentally deadly?

Bad guys warn because the fact they are involved in one criminal activity does not mean they desire to be involved in all criminal activities.

You should not be able to prevent that danger because thats a far more complex test to adjudicate.