8 thugs vs. a guy, his wife and his gun...gun owner arrested for warning shot...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However trite it's nonetheless true: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If a gun owner lives in a jurisdiction where brandishing/warning shots are illegal, then he shouldn't brandish or fire warning shots.

It's incumbent upon every gun owner to know the laws of his jurisdiction, including laws concerning self-defense with a firearm.

In the OP case the arrest is perfectly warranted, where local authorities are at liberty to not prosecute if there are mitigating circumstances.

But it's ignorant idiocy to be critical of the arrest, ignorant idiocy typical of the OP and those who agree with him.

 

[2aguy]

But it's ignorant idiocy to be critical of the arrest, ignorant idiocy typical of the OP and those who agree with him.

Wow, your reading comprehension needs a lot of work...your ignorance of the original post is amazing...

See, this is one of the hazards pointed out in gun studies as to why it is difficult to get complete numbers on defensive gun uses...here is a guy with his wife threatened by 8 thugs....he draws his weapon to warn the aggressive thugs off...and they don't back down...he fires a warning shot...trying not to kill anyone...and when the police show up...he gets in trouble for shooting the warning shot...

I made no judgement on the legitimacy of the arrest....I simply pointed out why some gun owners will not notify the police if they use their weapon to defend themselves and no one is shot or injured, and I also pointed out this is why people may not respond to phone surveys...

Try to improve your reading comprehension....they sell Jack and Jill books that might help you with that...of course you might have to work up to that level...and even then it might be beyond you...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is for you Brain357, Joe, and AtticusF...

See, this is one of the hazards pointed out in gun studies as to why it is difficult to get complete numbers on defensive gun uses...here is a guy with his wife threatened by 8 thugs....he draws his weapon to warn the aggressive thugs off...and they don't back down...he fires a warning shot...trying not to kill anyone...and when the police show up...he gets in trouble for shooting the warning shot...

Video WV Sunday School Teacher Arrested For Warning Shot After Being Accosted by 8 Suspects

A WV Sunday school teacher, Chris Harris, who was on his way home from church with his girlfriend is now facing serious criminal charges after firing a warning shot into the air.

According to WTOV,

“It was one of the most scariest experiences I have ever been though,” said CC Roxby, Harris’ fiancé. “They surrounded me saying some pretty vulgar things like they were going to rape my wife in front of me, cut me,” Harris said. Roxby said she called 911, but one man continued to be aggressive.

“The kid kept advancing on me, saying it wasn’t a real gun, and I would much rather shoot a shot into the air to prevent them from attacking me rather than them attacking me and me shooting someone,” Harris said.

“The cruisers were coming down the street at that point and the young men ran away,” Roxby said. “Instead of them following the gang, the officers arrested Chris for firing a shot into the air.”

No one was shot, no one was killed, the guy used his gun to stop a criminal assault....and in firing a warning shot he is the one in trouble...

This is why if the criminals had run away, he may not have called the police...

Discharged rounds fired up in the air don't go off into space, what goes up will come down. Depending on the arc, possibly with penetrative force. People've been killed that way. Why it's illegal, and why if a gun owner knowing your local laws is a good idea. Warning shots aren't often legal.

 

[zeke]

But it's ignorant idiocy to be critical of the arrest, ignorant idiocy typical of the OP and those who agree with him.

Wow, your reading comprehension needs a lot of work...your ignorance of the original post is amazing...

See, this is one of the hazards pointed out in gun studies as to why it is difficult to get complete numbers on defensive gun uses...here is a guy with his wife threatened by 8 thugs....he draws his weapon to warn the aggressive thugs off...and they don't back down...he fires a warning shot...trying not to kill anyone...and when the police show up...he gets in trouble for shooting the warning shot...

I made no judgement on the legitimacy of the arrest....I simply pointed out why some gun owners will not notify the police if they use their weapon to defend themselves and no one is shot or injured, and I also pointed out this is why people may not respond to phone surveys...

Try to improve your reading comprehension....they sell Jack and Jill books that might help you with that...of course you might have to work up to that level...and even then it might be beyond you...

By the same reasoning, the lack of verifiable information concerning DGU is the exact reason that people like me have a real hard time accepting the extrapolated numbers of DGU that you like to quote.

I did notice that you backed your DGU number down from 2.5 million to what, 1.4 million.

Did you somehow get more accurate information?

 

[2aguy]

I did notice that you backed your DGU number down from 2.5 million to what, 1.4 million.

Did you somehow get more accurate information?

• 

No, I took an average of all the studies...and that comes out to about 1.4 million times a year...I have new studies I haven't included...obama's CDC study from 2013 that put the number between 500,000-3 million and another study listed by another poster....

2.5 million is from the most accurately done study....they used the largest sample size and corrected for the mistakes of the other studies...

• 
• 

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

 

[zeke]

I did notice that you backed your DGU number down from 2.5 million to what, 1.4 million.

Did you somehow get more accurate information?

• 

No, I took an average of all the studies...and that comes out to about 1.4 million times a year...I have new studies I haven't included...obama's CDC study from 2013 that put the number between 500,000-3 million and another study listed by another poster....

2.5 million is from the most accurately done study....they used the largest sample size and corrected for the mistakes of the other studies...

• 
• 

2.5 million is the most accurate you say. But you gave up on those numbers pretty quick. Why was that?

Of course anyone that accepts a range of numbers from 500k to 3 million don't care much for accuracy.
I hope you can shoot better than that.

 

[zeke]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

Most of the gun nutters on here will say that the sound of a racking shotgun will scare off the most hardened criminals.

Then all people need is a high quality recording of the sound of a shotgun having a shell racked into the chamber and the threat is over. Interesting idea eh?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

Most of the gun nutters on here will say that the sound of a racking shotgun will scare off the most hardened criminals.

Then all people need is a high quality recording of the sound of a shotgun having a shell racked into the chamber and the threat is over. Interesting idea eh?

Had a carpenter friend show me his 'scary sound' deterrent. Some kind of nail gun that in the dark kinda looked like a Mac-10 complete with battery pack ya insert like a pistol's magazine. Asked him if it'd fire if ya held the depressor thing down like when using it properly...They do.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

Most of the gun nutters on here will say that the sound of a racking shotgun will scare off the most hardened criminals.

Then all people need is a high quality recording of the sound of a shotgun having a shell racked into the chamber and the threat is over. Interesting idea eh?

Trouble with that is weapons sound distinctly different raking a loaded magazine and stripping a round off, vs an unloaded version. Trained operator can hear the difference.

 

[zeke]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

Most of the gun nutters on here will say that the sound of a racking shotgun will scare off the most hardened criminals.

Then all people need is a high quality recording of the sound of a shotgun having a shell racked into the chamber and the threat is over. Interesting idea eh?

Trouble with that is weapons sound distinctly different raking a loaded magazine and stripping a round off, vs an unloaded version. Trained operator can hear the difference.

Well, you do have to get the "right" recording. Deception is a fact in wartime. And according to the gun nutters on here, it's a war out there. Thousands of attacks on law abiding Americans EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY OF THE YEAR.

Sure there is. It's just no one can find them.

You carpenter friend is thinking correctly. He may also have a Paslode nailer. Electricity and butane.I have to drag an air hose around for my nailer. It will still shoot a 16P nail. But the air hose is a dead give away.

I like my 28oz straight claw framing hammer. That baby will do some damage. Let us obsess over carpenter tools.

 

[2aguy]

it MUST taste blood.

I believe that is from the Ghurka's , not the Samurai...

I did Iaido for 6 years with an instructor who trained in Okinawa and Japan and that was not part of the Samurai culture...he also did Haga school Kendo...His first teacher in Mugai Ryu Iaido was Dr. Gordon Warner...I can give you a contact link if you would like to check on that...

 

[thereisnospoon]

If he had started shooting them, which it sounds like he could have, it would have taken a bad toll on human life, no matter how much they deserved it. Again IMO, the warning shot saved human lives, and the law should take that into account.

Nah...Shoot at extremities. Legs, arms.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

Most of the gun nutters on here will say that the sound of a racking shotgun will scare off the most hardened criminals.

Then all people need is a high quality recording of the sound of a shotgun having a shell racked into the chamber and the threat is over. Interesting idea eh?

Trouble with that is weapons sound distinctly different raking a loaded magazine and stripping a round off, vs an unloaded version. Trained operator can hear the difference.

Well, you do have to get the "right" recording. Deception is a fact in wartime. And according to the gun nutters on here, it's a war out there. Thousands of attacks on law abiding Americans EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY OF THE YEAR.

Sure there is. It's just no one can find them.

You carpenter friend is thinking correctly. He may also have a Paslode nailer. Electricity and butane.I have to drag an air hose around for my nailer. It will still shoot a 16P nail. But the air hose is a dead give away.

I like my 28oz straight claw framing hammer. That baby will do some damage. Let us obsess over carpenter tools.

Estwing? I have one of those. and a 22 oz as well.
Ya clock someone with one of those and then ask if anyone else wants a limp.

 

[AmericanFirst]

However trite it's nonetheless true: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If a gun owner lives in a jurisdiction where brandishing/warning shots are illegal, then he shouldn't brandish or fire warning shots.

It's incumbent upon every gun owner to know the laws of his jurisdiction, including laws concerning self-defense with a firearm.

In the OP case the arrest is perfectly warranted, where local authorities are at liberty to not prosecute if there are mitigating circumstances.

But it's ignorant idiocy to be critical of the arrest, ignorant idiocy typical of the OP and those who agree with him.

Typical response from a socialist idiot.

 

[AmericanFirst]

"Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas

For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles. "

more,
Why brandishing shooting to wound and warning shots are BAD ideas Second Call Defense


Think of your sidearm like a samurai does their katana. If ya withdraw it from the scabbard, it MUST taste blood. If you're taking out your pistol, you'd better be justified in using lethal force, otherwise you're putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

Most of the gun nutters on here will say that the sound of a racking shotgun will scare off the most hardened criminals.

Then all people need is a high quality recording of the sound of a shotgun having a shell racked into the chamber and the threat is over. Interesting idea eh?

real thing. No warning shot aim rack and fire.

 

[Vandalshandle]

This is West Virginia, folks. The guy will be fined $1.00, patted on the back, and then the judge will buy him a beer.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If he had started shooting them, which it sounds like he could have, it would have taken a bad toll on human life, no matter how much they deserved it. Again IMO, the warning shot saved human lives, and the law should take that into account.

Nah...Shoot at extremities. Legs, arms.

If someone had 9 thugs coming at them, some with weapons, they would try to make the shots as deadly as possible, I'm sure.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

What goes up must come down. Shoot the fucker.

Yeah, he really should have opened fire on all of them if he felt he was in danger. He likely wouldnt be in any trouble at all if he had done that, of course it cant be easy to just shoot someone. I think most people arent ready to make a move like that.

And also, it is one thing to kill one or two people but to potentially kill several is another.

 

[2aguy]

Well, they may not have had weapons visible when they were menacing this couple...which might confuse the situation...but...according to self defense law...9 vs. 2 is a disparity of force and if there was a belief that great bodily harm or death were about to happen...you could justify the shooting...but it would be touchy....if an actual physical attack hadn't started...