|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 13 2015 21:47 tertos wrote:Show nested quote +
If a person breaks into my house I'd rather put them down rather than waiting around for them to pull a gun on me so that I know there is a 100% threat, because at that point I'm already dead if he wants me to be.
And I as well value my life, the life of my family and friends. If you do that then you should be trialed and convicted for: -unlawful usage of fire arms, -disrespecting gun and ammo regulations, -if you do it within noise range of other people ,disturbance of public peace -and if any other human beings including your family are within gun's maximum range from point of shooting, public endangerment. These punishments should sum up to fines up to 30% of country average income on the next 2-5 years, and if unable or unwilling to pay 1-2 years jail time. And this is just for randomly firing a gun in your house even without any strangers in it. If a burglar was indeed in your house and you fired in his general direction -You should also be trialed for manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. And the punishment should be voided or halved on the grounds of how much of your life was at threat. Basically for 100% of punishment voided -Burglar must injure you and/or your family. Or the circumstances must prove that he intended that without a doubt. -Burglar must be armed with equal or more firepower. Or the circumstances must prove that he demonstrated that without a doubt. -YOU fired at least one warning shot prior to deadly force. But you should still be found guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter and have this crime on your criminal record, without punishment. I think its a small price to pay for saving your kid life. Edit: This under the assumption that YOU used a fire-arm bought specifically under self-defense reason, and your certifications and permits are up to day. No hunting rifles, no collection weapons.
Good luck ever getting something like that passed. I'm pretty sure most people would not agree with your criteria for lethal force. With those rules a guy could be holding a knife to your family member and you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him without protection from the law.
Sure out rules for when we can kill someone are more lenient than s lot of places, but that is because it is a good deterrent to stop crime and for the fact that a burglar is more likely to be armed over here.
|
On October 13 2015 23:09 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 21:47 tertos wrote:
If a person breaks into my house I'd rather put them down rather than waiting around for them to pull a gun on me so that I know there is a 100% threat, because at that point I'm already dead if he wants me to be.
And I as well value my life, the life of my family and friends. If you do that then you should be trialed and convicted for: -unlawful usage of fire arms, -disrespecting gun and ammo regulations, -if you do it within noise range of other people ,disturbance of public peace -and if any other human beings including your family are within gun's maximum range from point of shooting, public endangerment. These punishments should sum up to fines up to 30% of country average income on the next 2-5 years, and if unable or unwilling to pay 1-2 years jail time. And this is just for randomly firing a gun in your house even without any strangers in it. If a burglar was indeed in your house and you fired in his general direction -You should also be trialed for manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. And the punishment should be voided or halved on the grounds of how much of your life was at threat. Basically for 100% of punishment voided -Burglar must injure you and/or your family. Or the circumstances must prove that he intended that without a doubt. -Burglar must be armed with equal or more firepower. Or the circumstances must prove that he demonstrated that without a doubt. -YOU fired at least one warning shot prior to deadly force. But you should still be found guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter and have this crime on your criminal record, without punishment. I think its a small price to pay for saving your kid life. Edit: This under the assumption that YOU used a fire-arm bought specifically under self-defense reason, and your certifications and permits are up to day. No hunting rifles, no collection weapons. Good luck ever getting something like that passed. I'm pretty sure most people would not agree with your criteria for lethal force. With those rules a guy could be holding a knife to your family member and you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him without protection from the law. Sure how rules for when we can kill someone are more lenient than s lot of places, but that is because it is a good deterrent to stop crime and for the fact that a burglar is more likely to be armed over here.
Those rules do seem a bit steep but I think it makes sense that when using a weapon, one should have to make an affirmative case defending the use of the weapon (it's what we do/did in WA for cannabis).
|
On October 13 2015 23:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 23:09 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 13 2015 21:47 tertos wrote:
If a person breaks into my house I'd rather put them down rather than waiting around for them to pull a gun on me so that I know there is a 100% threat, because at that point I'm already dead if he wants me to be.
And I as well value my life, the life of my family and friends. If you do that then you should be trialed and convicted for: -unlawful usage of fire arms, -disrespecting gun and ammo regulations, -if you do it within noise range of other people ,disturbance of public peace -and if any other human beings including your family are within gun's maximum range from point of shooting, public endangerment. These punishments should sum up to fines up to 30% of country average income on the next 2-5 years, and if unable or unwilling to pay 1-2 years jail time. And this is just for randomly firing a gun in your house even without any strangers in it. If a burglar was indeed in your house and you fired in his general direction -You should also be trialed for manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. And the punishment should be voided or halved on the grounds of how much of your life was at threat. Basically for 100% of punishment voided -Burglar must injure you and/or your family. Or the circumstances must prove that he intended that without a doubt. -Burglar must be armed with equal or more firepower. Or the circumstances must prove that he demonstrated that without a doubt. -YOU fired at least one warning shot prior to deadly force. But you should still be found guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter and have this crime on your criminal record, without punishment. I think its a small price to pay for saving your kid life. Edit: This under the assumption that YOU used a fire-arm bought specifically under self-defense reason, and your certifications and permits are up to day. No hunting rifles, no collection weapons. Good luck ever getting something like that passed. I'm pretty sure most people would not agree with your criteria for lethal force. With those rules a guy could be holding a knife to your family member and you wouldn't be allowed to shoot him without protection from the law. Sure how rules for when we can kill someone are more lenient than s lot of places, but that is because it is a good deterrent to stop crime and for the fact that a burglar is more likely to be armed over here. Those rules do seem a bit steep but I think it makes sense that when using a weapon, one should have to make an affirmative case defending the use of the weapon (it's what we do/did in WA for cannabis).
In the current system you already need to do that and the local DA decides to bring charges or not if they feel the use of force was not justified. And the poster above doesn’t prongs for the justified use of force(deadly or otherwise) are not reflective of the way the legal system deals with it. The current system requires that the user of force has a reasonable fear of danger, death and great bodily harm. The standard of “reasonable” is well established in law and understood by the judges and DAs. His system seems to be based on some third party observation, which will somehow be neutral and have perfect information, which is a questionable system and would boil down to subjective judgments by a third party. In a sense it has similarities to the current system, but does not use the language of “reasonable fear”.
In reality, the vast majority of cases where self defense, deadly or otherwise, is used it is justified. It is a hang up that people like to discuss on the internet because of the nuances and views, but it isn't a huge debate outside of the internet.
Note: I do not like it when people claim that they would gun anyone down who broke into their home without question. I feel those statements show a lack of respect for human life. But I will admit odds are with them that the invader is very likely dangerous if they break into a home at night that is clearly occupied.
|
On October 13 2015 06:42 Broetchenholer wrote:
So at what point does the person that fights with weapons against his government change from a criminal, that many in this thread would shoot on the streets if they got the chance, to a freedom fighter? By the logic of many people in this thread, someone that threatens others peoples life can and should be killed by any bystander.
Realistically, when they win.
Or rather when the other people agree with them that the government agent is the criminal threatening lives that must be shot in the streets. (as such it is an individual judgment, I personally don't see us being anywhere close to that being justified currently)
On October 13 2015 06:42 Broetchenholer wrote:
The things that a democratic government needs to do in order to be justifiably overthrown by their armed citizens makes it very unlikely that this revolt succeeds in the first place, because then you probably already have a military dictarship or something similar that will not be impressed by an armed revolt. The British will not return, your country will not overnight turn into the Third Reich and the abolishing of the 2nd amendment does not warrant a war against the tyranny of your government.
Overnight* is the issue, abolishing the 2nd amendment would both move it closer, and would prevent that war as an option. (same as abolishing the first amendment would move it closer to the point at which overthrow was needed, and make it harder to resist)
The other reason is that the 2nd Amendment basically allows you to protect your own life without relying 100% on the government, even if you don't think the government is a threat to your life/rights, it is best not to be required to totally rely on them.
(since the USA is not the Third Reich, but it is also not omnipotent and able to teleport cops into a building when calling 911)
Its the "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care if we know" issue.
1-I don't trust you to not use it against me
2-I don't trust you to protect that information from others
On October 13 2015 22:06 Toadesstern wrote:
Now that's a bit much if you're asking for all of that. Let's go back to the guy with a knife in a wafflehouse.
Let's say, instead the story was something like:
He went inside with a knife, in front of the counter and says something along the lines of "gimme all the money you have and noone gets hurt". Now in that case you're obviously not allowed to shoot him assuming he keeps his distance. He gets the money, leaves the place and noone gets hurt. Which again, is what Kwark was arguing if I understood him correctly. Sure it isn't all nice rainbows and unicorns but given the situation that's about as good of an ending as you'll get and having someone dead, including the intruder, would be a way worse outcome.
On the other hand, if the guy suddenly rushes at someone with knife in hand you can and should be allowed to fire away without having to make a warning shot just because you don't have the time to do that when he's legit charging someone.
Same goes for someone in your house.
The difference is anyone can enter a waffle house, and there is no assumption that they mean harm, they have time to pull their knife and give their "and no body gets hurt" speech. However, if someone breaks in to a house they have already broken through one of the things people use to protect themselves (their walls), and may be willing to do other things.
Shooting first is a bad idea and could go very badly, but I wouldn't say it would necessarily unjustified. (largely depends on the situation and how protected you were in relation to the person)
Chances are they walked into the waffle house with the door open, the equivalent would be like if one of your party guests pulled the same stunt in the middle of the day. However, most cases of the break in, it is later at night, and they actually broke in. (and most house rooms are smaller than a waffle house I believe)
|
On October 13 2015 22:41 tertos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 22:06 Toadesstern wrote:
Now that's a bit much if you're asking for all of that. Let's go back to the guy with a knife in a wafflehouse.
Let's say, instead the story was something like:
He went inside with a knife, in front of the counter and says something along the lines of "gimme all the money you have and noone gets hurt". Now in that case you're obviously not allowed to shoot him assuming he keeps his distance. He gets the money, leaves the place and noone gets hurt. Which again, is what Kwark was arguing if I understood him correctly. Sure it isn't all nice rainbows and unicorns but given the situation that's about as good of an ending as you'll get and having someone dead, including the intruder, would be a way worse outcome.
On the other hand, if the guy suddenly rushes at someone with knife in hand you can and should be allowed to fire away without having to make a warning shot just because you don't have the time to do that when he's legit charging someone.
Same goes for someone in your house. The problem is with the last statement, where there is no drawback. Firing a gun in other places than a designated hunting ground, authorized firing range, or in the line of duty should have SEVERE consequences, no mater the circumstances. The problem with american self-defense law is that there's no incentive to "cooperate". Every-else where the law is more of a prisoner dilemma where there is clear that the best outcome comes from both parties cooperating. -I don't shoot, he does - I am dead. He gets away with a pocket full of cash and maybe a later conviction. -I don't shoot, he does not - I am poorer. He gets away (maybe). -I shoot, he does not - He is dead - I win. The law in my place is pretty funny. Usage of hunting weapons for any purpose other hunting in specially designated place brings on a hefty amount of fines and revocation of weapon permit. You are allowed to have guns for self defense purpose only if you are active or retired internal affair employee (police, gendarmerie, state protection services, military etc). diplomats or state dignitaries. All good and dandy, now lets say you went out to buy cigarettes, someone enters your house with an AK, and your wife opens your safe, takes out your self-defense gun and shoots the guy in the hand. He drops the gun and waits there quietly for the law enforcement. Police comes and arrests all 3 of you. -He gets charged for illegal weapon carriage and trespassing or breaking an entry. -She gets charged for attempted murder, illegal weapon usage. -You get charged for accessory to attempted murder and not respecting gun control and ammunition regulations. Guess who gets out of jail first? It's not a fair outcome but it's good damn deterrent for vigilantes.
"same goes with someone in your house" was meant to imply the same conditions as above and you misunderstood me:
Aka, you're in your house, the guy with a knife in his hand tells you "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" while keeping his distance means you aren't allowed to shoot him. And if you do you'll rightfully end up in jail for the rest of your life.
Guy in your house has the knife in his hand and is rushing towards you while pointing the knife at you means you should be allowed to shoot him even without firing a warning shot because in that situation you might not have the time to do so.
There's nothing wrong with pressing charges against people who shoot other people as a general method of operation and figure out wether they were in the right to shoot during that process. I'm fairly sure that's the case for almost every place. To figure that out is just not as easy as you made it out to be with your list of bullet points that have to be in effect every time.
|
So basically you don't believe anyone has the right to defend their lives up until the very second where its too late? I honestly can't comprehend why anyone would give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who has forced his way into an occupied house. Of course I don't value anyone's life over mine so...
|
Also, if the DA is pressing charges it means that the process to determine if they were justified in using deadly force has already been done. Pressing charges is not a requirement for an investigation to be conducted.
|
On October 14 2015 00:15 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 22:41 tertos wrote:On October 13 2015 22:06 Toadesstern wrote:
Now that's a bit much if you're asking for all of that. Let's go back to the guy with a knife in a wafflehouse.
Let's say, instead the story was something like:
He went inside with a knife, in front of the counter and says something along the lines of "gimme all the money you have and noone gets hurt". Now in that case you're obviously not allowed to shoot him assuming he keeps his distance. He gets the money, leaves the place and noone gets hurt. Which again, is what Kwark was arguing if I understood him correctly. Sure it isn't all nice rainbows and unicorns but given the situation that's about as good of an ending as you'll get and having someone dead, including the intruder, would be a way worse outcome.
On the other hand, if the guy suddenly rushes at someone with knife in hand you can and should be allowed to fire away without having to make a warning shot just because you don't have the time to do that when he's legit charging someone.
Same goes for someone in your house. The problem is with the last statement, where there is no drawback. Firing a gun in other places than a designated hunting ground, authorized firing range, or in the line of duty should have SEVERE consequences, no mater the circumstances. The problem with american self-defense law is that there's no incentive to "cooperate". Every-else where the law is more of a prisoner dilemma where there is clear that the best outcome comes from both parties cooperating. -I don't shoot, he does - I am dead. He gets away with a pocket full of cash and maybe a later conviction. -I don't shoot, he does not - I am poorer. He gets away (maybe). -I shoot, he does not - He is dead - I win. The law in my place is pretty funny. Usage of hunting weapons for any purpose other hunting in specially designated place brings on a hefty amount of fines and revocation of weapon permit. You are allowed to have guns for self defense purpose only if you are active or retired internal affair employee (police, gendarmerie, state protection services, military etc). diplomats or state dignitaries. All good and dandy, now lets say you went out to buy cigarettes, someone enters your house with an AK, and your wife opens your safe, takes out your self-defense gun and shoots the guy in the hand. He drops the gun and waits there quietly for the law enforcement. Police comes and arrests all 3 of you. -He gets charged for illegal weapon carriage and trespassing or breaking an entry. -She gets charged for attempted murder, illegal weapon usage. -You get charged for accessory to attempted murder and not respecting gun control and ammunition regulations. Guess who gets out of jail first? It's not a fair outcome but it's good damn deterrent for vigilantes. "same goes with someone in your house" was meant to imply the same conditions as above and you misunderstood me: Aka, you're in your house, the guy with a knife in his hand tells you "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" while keeping his distance means you aren't allowed to shoot him. And if you do you'll rightfully end up in jail for the rest of your life. Guy in your house has the knife in his hand and is rushing towards you while pointing the knife at you means you should be allowed to shoot him even without firing a warning shot because in that situation you might not have the time to do so. There's nothing wrong with pressing charges against people who shoot other people as a general method of operation and figure out wether they were in the right to shoot during that process. I'm fairly sure that's the case for almost every place. To figure that out is just not as easy as you made it out to be with your list of bullet points that have to be in effect every time.
If it's just you and the man with the knife in a room in your house and you shoot him dead, how do they really know what happened? Is there a way for forensics to tell that he did not say "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" or that he did't stalk to walk/run toward the defender? This is a honest question about how they handle those types of situations.
|
While I'm strongly opposed to the violent mentality that gun proponets exhibit and I believe them to be more or less delusional, I need to clear up some misconceptions on the (german) right of self-defence:
Aka, you're in your house, the guy with a knife in his hand tells you "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" while keeping his distance means you aren't allowed to shoot him. And if you do you'll rightfully end up in jail for the rest of your life. This - for example - just isn't the case!
German criminal law - by many considered (especially the "general" provisions) to be one of the most well-thought out, balanced, even beautiful bodies of law - offers a far sharper right of self-defence than many humanists in here would seemingly find appropriate:
If there is an ongoing (unlawful) attack on any individual legal right, the "most gentle" but effective measure to stop the attack is justified. If a thief is running away with your laptop and he is still close (ongoing attack on your property), and the only way for you to stop him (after you fired a warning shot), is to shoot him, you are justified even if you realized the possibility that you might kill him. Now there is a minority opinion (university law professors) that argue that in such an extreme case (relatively unimportant attack) Art. 2 of the ECHR might not allow for such a sharp right of self defence. But in general the german right of self defence (contrary to the right of defence in a state of necessity) knows no weighting of the right the attacker violates with the right the act of self-defence violates. Basically we have the principle justice doesn't ever need to bow before injustice
German criminal code:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/
Relevant provisions (32: self defence/ and 34 necessity)
|
On October 14 2015 01:34 Thersites wrote:While I'm strongly opposed to the violent mentality that gun proponets exhibit and I believe them to be more or less delusional, I need to clear up some misconceptions on the (german) right of self-defence: Show nested quote +Aka, you're in your house, the guy with a knife in his hand tells you "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" while keeping his distance means you aren't allowed to shoot him. And if you do you'll rightfully end up in jail for the rest of your life. This - for example - just isn't the case! German criminal law - by many considered (especially the "general" provisions) to be one of the most well-thought out, balanced, even beautiful bodies of law - offers a far sharper right of self-defence than many humanists in here would seemingly find appropriate: If there is an ongoing (unlawful) attack on any individual legal right, the "most gentle" but effective measure to stop the attack is justified. If a thief is running away with your laptop and he is still close (ongoing attack on your property), and the only way for you to stop him (after you fired a warning shot), is to shoot him, you are justified even if you realized the possibility that you might kill him. Now there is a minority opinion (university law professors) that argue that in such an extreme case (relatively unimportant attack) Art. 2 of the ECHR might not allow for such a sharp right of self defence. But in general the german right of self defence (contrary to the right of defence in a state of necessity) knows no weighting of the right the attacker violates with the right the act of self-defence violates. Basically we have the principle justice doesn't ever need to bow before injustice German criminal code: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/Relevant provisions (32: self defence/ and 34 necessity)
and as it says
This shall apply only if and to the extent that the act committed is an adequate means to avert the danger.
You'll have a heck of a hard time explaining why shooting someone in their back (because running away like you mentioned) is an adequate reaction to losing an (most likely) insured laptop when otherwise no other threat exists.
On October 14 2015 01:25 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 00:15 Toadesstern wrote:On October 13 2015 22:41 tertos wrote:On October 13 2015 22:06 Toadesstern wrote:
Now that's a bit much if you're asking for all of that. Let's go back to the guy with a knife in a wafflehouse.
Let's say, instead the story was something like:
He went inside with a knife, in front of the counter and says something along the lines of "gimme all the money you have and noone gets hurt". Now in that case you're obviously not allowed to shoot him assuming he keeps his distance. He gets the money, leaves the place and noone gets hurt. Which again, is what Kwark was arguing if I understood him correctly. Sure it isn't all nice rainbows and unicorns but given the situation that's about as good of an ending as you'll get and having someone dead, including the intruder, would be a way worse outcome.
On the other hand, if the guy suddenly rushes at someone with knife in hand you can and should be allowed to fire away without having to make a warning shot just because you don't have the time to do that when he's legit charging someone.
Same goes for someone in your house. The problem is with the last statement, where there is no drawback. Firing a gun in other places than a designated hunting ground, authorized firing range, or in the line of duty should have SEVERE consequences, no mater the circumstances. The problem with american self-defense law is that there's no incentive to "cooperate". Every-else where the law is more of a prisoner dilemma where there is clear that the best outcome comes from both parties cooperating. -I don't shoot, he does - I am dead. He gets away with a pocket full of cash and maybe a later conviction. -I don't shoot, he does not - I am poorer. He gets away (maybe). -I shoot, he does not - He is dead - I win. The law in my place is pretty funny. Usage of hunting weapons for any purpose other hunting in specially designated place brings on a hefty amount of fines and revocation of weapon permit. You are allowed to have guns for self defense purpose only if you are active or retired internal affair employee (police, gendarmerie, state protection services, military etc). diplomats or state dignitaries. All good and dandy, now lets say you went out to buy cigarettes, someone enters your house with an AK, and your wife opens your safe, takes out your self-defense gun and shoots the guy in the hand. He drops the gun and waits there quietly for the law enforcement. Police comes and arrests all 3 of you. -He gets charged for illegal weapon carriage and trespassing or breaking an entry. -She gets charged for attempted murder, illegal weapon usage. -You get charged for accessory to attempted murder and not respecting gun control and ammunition regulations. Guess who gets out of jail first? It's not a fair outcome but it's good damn deterrent for vigilantes. "same goes with someone in your house" was meant to imply the same conditions as above and you misunderstood me: Aka, you're in your house, the guy with a knife in his hand tells you "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" while keeping his distance means you aren't allowed to shoot him. And if you do you'll rightfully end up in jail for the rest of your life. Guy in your house has the knife in his hand and is rushing towards you while pointing the knife at you means you should be allowed to shoot him even without firing a warning shot because in that situation you might not have the time to do so. There's nothing wrong with pressing charges against people who shoot other people as a general method of operation and figure out wether they were in the right to shoot during that process. I'm fairly sure that's the case for almost every place. To figure that out is just not as easy as you made it out to be with your list of bullet points that have to be in effect every time. If it's just you and the man with the knife in a room in your house and you shoot him dead, how do they really know what happened? Is there a way for forensics to tell that he did not say "gimme your money and noone gets hurt" or that he did't stalk to walk/run toward the defender? This is a honest question about how they handle those types of situations. that wasn't really supposed to be a realistic conclusion to it rather than a "what would happen if they figured out that's what happened and what you did". So if they somehow got a video of you shooting him down without doing anything else like a warning shot if you have a gun and he's only armed with a knife while holding his distance.
Figuring out what actually went down is obviously another thing, but you can't just shoot whatever once it's in your house was what I'm trying to get at.
|
Self defence is not the same as necessity! If the only way to stop any attack is to kill you may kill. (There are extreme exceptions: old man in wheelchair shooting kids who steal apples)
If there only is danger (34 not 32) not an attack it is different as I explained. Trust me: the german right of self defence is a sharp sword.
|
On October 14 2015 01:52 Thersites wrote:
Self defence is not the same as necessity! If the only way to stop any attack is to kill you may kill. (There are extreme exceptions: old man in wheelchair shooting kids who steal apples)
If there only is danger (34 not 32) not an attack it is different as I explained. Trust me: the german right of self defence is a sharp sword.
I wasn't really arguing that you're not allowed to shoot at all. I was arguing that you're not allowed to outright shoot when the force used would be considered unreasonable. Like you mentioned, if you have a gun while the other guy hasn't got one and is still some distance away and doesn't really pose a threat. You would most certainly at least have to fire a warning shot or tell him that you're armed and you'll shoot if he gets any closer. Assuming he's not already in the process of bullrushing you.
|
Like you mentioned, if you have a gun while the other guy hasn't got one and is still some distance away, you would most certainly at least have to fire a warning shot
This is true, but generally you never need to let an attack "happen" even if it only violates minor interests (property) only because you might harm far more important interests (human life), there is no weighting for self defence
We obviously dont have any ridiculous rules, that allow you to simply kill someone for entering your house: only if killing is the last possible way to stop an attack you might do so
|
United States24613 Posts
I don't really understand the European (is it just German) interest in warning shots. What is the point of a warning shot? I'm not firing a gun unless I intend to hit something, lest I hit something I didn't intend to hit.
|
isnt it obvious?
you're giving the criminal a chance to surrender by making him aware that you are armed with deadly force. and by surrender i dont mean kneel and wait for cops, it just means youre making it clear to him that should he choose to fight you you will shoot him.
|
United States24613 Posts
How is that different than pointing a gun at someone and yelling at them, aside from creating a stray bullet? It seems like a Hollywood thing to me.
|
well lets say its night and everything is dark. you shouting "raise your hands", "stop', or whatever else you would think of saying in that situation doesnt exactly tell the criminal you are armed.
also, firing a warning shot makes them realise the severity of the situation far more than you holding a gun which may or may not be loaded, or you may or may not know how to fire.
also, if the criminal was facing away from you, you dont want to talk to him and give him the chance to turn around and shoot you, like so many americans here have spoken about. a warning shot lets them know that they do anything sudden and theyll get shot instantly.
i dont necessarily think warning shots are the best approach to these situations, but a warning shot when possible is FAR better than just shooting the guy and being done with it imo. its quite easy to see where the europeans or whoever youre specifying is coming from
|
On October 15 2015 11:09 micronesia wrote:
I don't really understand the European (is it just German) interest in warning shots. What is the point of a warning shot? I'm not firing a gun unless I intend to hit something, lest I hit something I didn't intend to hit.
You see warning shots portrayed from the criminal perspective of "meaning business" (that the gun is real and you're willing to fire it without fear of repercussions).
Not sure if that's what Europeans are thinking, but I know that's the thinking from a lot of Americans who advocate warning shots.
|
United States24613 Posts
Hm, so no acknowledgement whatsoever of the potential downsides of unloading a round in your house as a method of communication...
I guess I'll just agree to disagree with the practice.
Regardless, based on evilfatsh1t's explanation, it seems like the purpose of a warning shot would be to prevent a situation where an intruder thinks you aren't armed and then attacks you, forcing you to open fire. Honestly, if someone is literally attacking me in say, my own home at night, my top priority is not exhausting all methods of communication to assure them attacking me is a tactical error. It's one thing to say you shouldn't shoot someone for breaking into your house if the first thing they do when they become aware of you is to flee. It's another thing to say you should have fired a warning shot so the intruder would not have lunged at you with a knife, forcing you to open fire.
While I don't use guns for self defense at home, I'm generally glad that where I live it is not specifically expected for you to use warning shots in a home defense situation.
|
Did a little looking; looks like policies vary around the world on this. In the US, the feds and most police have a policy against the use of warning shots. Germany allows them, though they still use them very sparingly. Didn't find anything specific elsewhere, though I didn't check for each country, I imagine there's a fair number of each.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
