Airhoss

Your instructor was an idiot.

paladin

If the first shot is center of mass and the second is to the head the Perp. won't get off "scot free". Besides, if you find an intruder in your home it has gone way beyond "feeling" threatened, for me it is a clear and present danger. Cub I don't know which state you got your handgun training but in Texas warning shots are never advised, if nothing else for the reason of collateral damage. But you are correct part of owning a gun is knowing the local laws.

Ever hear of Joe Horn? Talk about a sympathetic Grand Jury.

Twin Wasp

No, that would be murder under the laws of the state of Texas. Force is justified to avoid imminent harm. Someone running away is not a threat.

paladin

I think you need some recurrent on Gun laws and use of force in Texas. Have you not heard of Joe Horn or Jerry Casey Jr.?

Red Forman

Thank you, Twin Wasp does not know what he or she is talking about when it comes to case law in the state of Texas. I can't remember the name of the man who shot two burglars in the back as they were running away from robbing a neighbor's house, but he was let free by a grand jury.

Found it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

Cubdriver

The man does gun seminars for a living, is licensed for CCW training in fact, and has a state wide reputation as a gun law expert. I'll disclose his name if skeptical. He trains the local police also. But you somehow know that all the others misjudged his qualifications by a country mile and he is actually an idiot who spews useless advice. Have I got it straight?

Cubdriver

True, but the condition of the perp does not alter the basic point that you would want to act according to local law if you want a happy outcome. We seem to agree that having a gun without thinking through the legal implications is not very desirable. At the very least we need to check local laws and make sure we act in agreement with them.

paladin

Yes we do. However, in the state of Texas you are completely within your rights to use deady force if you find an illegal intruder in your home; day or night. And contrary to popular belief there is no requirement to drag the body back into the house once you have put them down.

As for your gun instructor friend: since there is no requirement for a warning shot I question his judgement.

For me, no warning shots period because:

1. Tactically it's a bad move. You're wasting time and ammunition. It gives time for the bad guy to close or to draw and fire his own weapon. Many criminal types may look at a warning shot as proof that you don't have the "guts" to shoot and will actually increase the pace of their attack, especially in close quarters.

2. It's also a bad move in that you are legally and morally responsible for every round you send down range. In a building how do you know you're bullet won't penetrate and kill an innocent third party?

3. Legally, it's mixed depending on where you live. In Texas, at least, you are authorized to use deadly force to defend yourself (or others) from an imminent threat to life or limb as well as property. Some prosecutors could look at the fact that you took the time to waste a round as proof that you were NOT in imminent danger, and, in reference to #2 above, were in fact recklessly and negligently endangering the lives of others by firing such a shot.

Honest Mr. Prosecutor my only goal was to neutalize the threat! In the words of Tuco Ramirez "when it is time to shoot, shoot...don't talk".

Herb Flemmming

He was from South Africa

Cubdriver

Disagree for the most part. If the attacker was within arm's reach would be true. If they were across the room, the idea that losing tactical advantage because of a single warning shot is pretty weak. Most hand to hand combat shooting deaths are not from tissue damage from a single shot, they are from bleeding from multiple shot wounds.

Agree. Don't do if you are going to shoot grandma in the foot.

I could see this going several ways.

1. A warning shot shows you had the composure to decide what to do before shooting, but whether this could be used to show you were truly calm is iffy and even so, you may have been justified in killing however calm you were. Danger is not proven one way or the other.

2. On the contrary, a warning shot gives you a strong argument that you did not intend to kill, even if it is not the case. And the best time to do this is not after the fight when everyone is injured and all the rounds are discharged. This is the argument my instructor was trying to convey- you need some proof you tried not to kill and the first round is about all you have to show that. The attacker may also run, which would be an even safer outcome.

Ultimately it boils down to the local laws. If you live in place where the local laws favor home defense without question, I would not fire a warning shot. If they do not, take the advice of experts and fire one somewhat carefully into the ceiling.