4 ms·

> In short, if you're not threatened enough to kill, you're not threatened enough to fire your weapon. This doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously, the discha

by lukifer 13y ago

> In short, if you're not threatened enough to kill, you're not threatened enough to fire your weapon. This doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously, the discharging of a firearm should never be taken lightly. But the sound of a gunshot is an extremely effective deterrent, and I don't see why that doesn't make it a legitimate form of self-defense. > Guns... aren't meant to dissuade someone from a course of action Isn't that exactly what they're for? Police don't (usually) draw their weapons for the express purpose of killing. They do so to force a violent attacker to stand down, ideally without having to fire a shot.

rjbwork 13y ago
I meant actually firing one. I mean, most gun training classes do actually tell you that you shouldn't ever point your firearm at anything you don't intend on harming. I tend to think of a policeman drawing their weapon slightly differently, because they are an extension of the, ostensibly legitimate, force of the state. This is different than a private citizen using a firearm according to the law.
rdouble 13y ago
Warning shots are illegal everywhere. It's considered use of deadly force when it is not required. Any firearms training course will tell you this. It just so happens Florida has very harsh mandatory minimum sentencing for this offense. In Vermont they'll just give you a fine.
- hga 13y ago
  Errr, they have harsh sentencing for attempted murder, as well they should.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    The mandatory minimum is for "unlawful use of deadly force."
    - hga 13y ago
      Ah, I see. Of course, by definition attempted murder is "unlawful use of deadly force", but the state wants to, quite properly, sanction the latter.
- lukifer 13y ago
  I did not know that. Though I'm aware of the risks of firing a weapon when you don't know where the bullet will land, I don't see why a warning shot should be illegal if done safely (shooting at the floor, etc). I also wonder if any state license(s) held by the shooter required learning that warning shots are unlawful. As a guy who doesn't own guns, it seems extremely counterintuitive.
  - hga 13y ago
    Florida's concealed carry license doesn't require instruction in legal use of lethal force, e.g. a hunter safety course will satisfy its training requirements; she had one or at least she claims to have had one. Any reading or training you get on this subject will emphasize that you can only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop a threat of "grievous bodily harm" or the like including rape, or death, so by implication warning shots are not legitimate. (Texas is not surprisingly a special case, it uniquely allows the use of lethal force after a verbal warning to stop the theft of property, don't know how warning shots are treated by that state.) As a non-gun owner this may strike you as extremely counterintuitive, but it's a general part of most any training you might get or relevant safety rules; you own every bullet you shoot, you're responsible for what they hit. E.g. see Jeff Cooper's 4 safety rules, which I consider to be the best set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety Note rule 4: "Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified." A shot into the floor is not 100% safe, you're directing a lot of energy into it, you don't know what that might kick up. However, she shot a wall, and that's inherently dangerous unless your nearest neighbor is far, far away which I gather wasn't the case (Jacksonville has 1,100 people per square mile). None of this would appear to be relevant to the case, the court determined she was guilty of attempted murder vs. lessor charges that I assume could have applied, like assault. If they'd believed her dodgy claim of self-defense it shouldn't have resulted in a judgement that she was actually trying to kill her husband.
- Tomte 13y ago
  That's wrong (you may mean "in the US", though, I don't know about that). And incredibly stupid. Of course it is desirable to give the attacker a chance to retreat by firing a warning shot. If he continues and you're in imminent physical danger, you shoot at the legs. And only if that did not help you go for the torso. (If there is enough time, if the killing shot is the only one you're ever going to get to fire, then that it is)
  - Casseres 13y ago
    In the U.S. state I'm from, you are not allowed to perform "kill shots". You are only allowed to shot to stop. Training classes will always advise against shooting at the legs. They are easily missed, take precious time, and waste ammo (hopefully you won't need to use all of your ammo, but it has happened to persons defending themselves against multiple threats). Ask police officers or soldiers if they shoot at the legs of threats, or if their first shot is towards center-mass.
  - hga 13y ago
    Sorry, but echoing Casseres, you've demonstrated you know little to nothing about the legal use of lethal force in the US or practical self-defense with a gun. If you own a gun, please get a book like this classic http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001/ http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection... before you end up being convicted of a serious crime. Extending his remarks, if you hit the femoral artery in someone's upper leg, they're going to quickly bleed out unless they get serious first aid.
    - Tomte 13y ago
      Well, but I know about what German courts require in cases of self-defense with a gun. I'm sorry to hear that the US have not developed some sensible framework of self-defense.
      - hga 13y ago
        Ah; the US has 50+ frameworks of self-defense, given our federalism. What do you not find sensible about Florida's? If you accept Zimmerman's account of the incident, which we presume the jury did, he only resorted to lethal force after he was in legitimate fear for his life, and he never had an opportunity to retreat (states vary greatly on duty to retreat vs. stand your ground). What do German courts require?
hga 13y ago
Well, it's not, and not for police outside of perhaps riot situations. And in many if not most states civilians are allowed to use the threat of lethal force in self-defense, just like the police. Shooting is lethal force; if you're not justified in using lethal force, you're not justified in shooting to begin with. There's also the minor detail that the court system determined she tried to murder her husband, "Alexander was convicted of attempted murder..." (and even if not officially, with an aggravating factor of putting children at risk), but "Fla. mom gets 20 years for being a bad shot" isn't as sexy, and "Fla. mom gets 20 years for attempted murder" is not even nationally newsworthy.

by lukifer 13y ago

rjbwork 13y ago

I meant actually firing one. I mean, most gun training classes do actually tell you that you shouldn't ever point your firearm at anything you don't intend on harming. I tend to think of a policeman drawing their weapon slightly differently, because they are an extension of the, ostensibly legitimate, force of the state. This is different than a private citizen using a firearm according to the law.

rdouble 13y ago

Warning shots are illegal everywhere. It's considered use of deadly force when it is not required. Any firearms training course will tell you this. It just so happens Florida has very harsh mandatory minimum sentencing for this offense. In Vermont they'll just give you a fine.

hga 13y ago
Errr, they have harsh sentencing for attempted murder, as well they should.
- rdouble 13y ago
  The mandatory minimum is for "unlawful use of deadly force."
  - hga 13y ago
    Ah, I see. Of course, by definition attempted murder is "unlawful use of deadly force", but the state wants to, quite properly, sanction the latter.
lukifer 13y ago
I did not know that. Though I'm aware of the risks of firing a weapon when you don't know where the bullet will land, I don't see why a warning shot should be illegal if done safely (shooting at the floor, etc). I also wonder if any state license(s) held by the shooter required learning that warning shots are unlawful. As a guy who doesn't own guns, it seems extremely counterintuitive.
- hga 13y ago
  Florida's concealed carry license doesn't require instruction in legal use of lethal force, e.g. a hunter safety course will satisfy its training requirements; she had one or at least she claims to have had one. Any reading or training you get on this subject will emphasize that you can only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop a threat of "grievous bodily harm" or the like including rape, or death, so by implication warning shots are not legitimate. (Texas is not surprisingly a special case, it uniquely allows the use of lethal force after a verbal warning to stop the theft of property, don't know how warning shots are treated by that state.) As a non-gun owner this may strike you as extremely counterintuitive, but it's a general part of most any training you might get or relevant safety rules; you own every bullet you shoot, you're responsible for what they hit. E.g. see Jeff Cooper's 4 safety rules, which I consider to be the best set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety Note rule 4: "Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified." A shot into the floor is not 100% safe, you're directing a lot of energy into it, you don't know what that might kick up. However, she shot a wall, and that's inherently dangerous unless your nearest neighbor is far, far away which I gather wasn't the case (Jacksonville has 1,100 people per square mile). None of this would appear to be relevant to the case, the court determined she was guilty of attempted murder vs. lessor charges that I assume could have applied, like assault. If they'd believed her dodgy claim of self-defense it shouldn't have resulted in a judgement that she was actually trying to kill her husband.
Tomte 13y ago
That's wrong (you may mean "in the US", though, I don't know about that). And incredibly stupid. Of course it is desirable to give the attacker a chance to retreat by firing a warning shot. If he continues and you're in imminent physical danger, you shoot at the legs. And only if that did not help you go for the torso. (If there is enough time, if the killing shot is the only one you're ever going to get to fire, then that it is)
- Casseres 13y ago
  In the U.S. state I'm from, you are not allowed to perform "kill shots". You are only allowed to shot to stop. Training classes will always advise against shooting at the legs. They are easily missed, take precious time, and waste ammo (hopefully you won't need to use all of your ammo, but it has happened to persons defending themselves against multiple threats). Ask police officers or soldiers if they shoot at the legs of threats, or if their first shot is towards center-mass.
- hga 13y ago
  Sorry, but echoing Casseres, you've demonstrated you know little to nothing about the legal use of lethal force in the US or practical self-defense with a gun. If you own a gun, please get a book like this classic http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001/ http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection... before you end up being convicted of a serious crime. Extending his remarks, if you hit the femoral artery in someone's upper leg, they're going to quickly bleed out unless they get serious first aid.
  - Tomte 13y ago
    Well, but I know about what German courts require in cases of self-defense with a gun. I'm sorry to hear that the US have not developed some sensible framework of self-defense.
    - hga 13y ago
      Ah; the US has 50+ frameworks of self-defense, given our federalism. What do you not find sensible about Florida's? If you accept Zimmerman's account of the incident, which we presume the jury did, he only resorted to lethal force after he was in legitimate fear for his life, and he never had an opportunity to retreat (states vary greatly on duty to retreat vs. stand your ground). What do German courts require?

hga 13y ago

Well, it's not, and not for police outside of perhaps riot situations. And in many if not most states civilians are allowed to use the threat of lethal force in self-defense, just like the police. Shooting is lethal force; if you're not justified in using lethal force, you're not justified in shooting to begin with. There's also the minor detail that the court system determined she tried to murder her husband, "Alexander was convicted of attempted murder..." (and even if not officially, with an aggravating factor of putting children at risk), but "Fla. mom gets 20 years for being a bad shot" isn't as sexy, and "Fla. mom gets 20 years for attempted murder" is not even nationally newsworthy.