This is correct. It’s a lot easier to make the case that you were afraid for your life if you unloaded the clip. If you pop them in the head with one shot, that doesn’t look like you were afraid for your life, even though it is badass.
I've known a few service members that barely knew the basic rule of 'point the barrel at the bad guy and not at your friends'. They were usually the ones that failed weapons qualification by shooting someone else's target.
Shoot the one closest and therefore the most dangerous once. Then second closest and so on until you get to the one in the back, he gets the double tap. Then start over from the front.
Virginia is completely fucked up. They can burn down my house and unless my life is directly threatened I'm not even allowed to hold a gun in self-defense. Criminals are allowed to run wild, but God help me if I want to shake hands with my neighbors in church. There aren't enough honks in the world to describe how crazy things have become around here.
Is it through the door on on the property? Important distinction there and one that makes a world of difference (rioters can burn your house down without ever stepping through the door).
I'd imagine unless you have witnesses to back you up or good CCTV footage it could be a tough sell... But still better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 leaving your family behind or dead in your burned home. Any law pedes here willing to dig for cases, we may need to know these things soon!
I hate to be the internet tough guy, and I would never give this advice lightly. Me personally, if I was trapped and I saw someone lighting a molotov in clear line of site with no mistake what they were planning. I'd take it, law be damned.
Protect your family first, get judge by 12 than having your entire family carried by 6. Just my 2 cents.
Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 776.012. Use or threatened use of force in defense of person
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection **does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground **if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Just think, giving a warning shot is an attempt to stop someone from doing what they’re doing outside of just shooting them! You are actually giving them a choice of life or death, just that moment of reconsideration. But it is illegal. Sadly, they can burn down our buildings with no justice put upon them but if we give them that choice of “life or death” we get arrested. Sooooo, you know what to do.
The moral of this story is that in the heat of a battle your focus is ONLY on the one or possible multiple combatants wanting to kill you so you may lose focus of the surroundings.. If your shot wasn't in direct response to saving your life and it ends someone else well, the tides will turn and you are technically now the aggressor
Even in case where a warning shot is legal you still need to really be careful. Always with guns. A warning shot can go wrong still or is a great way to start a gun fight if they don't know if it's a warning shot or they're being shot at.
At that point you'd be using it not "brandishing" anyways. I do think there are acceptable times when people have thwarted an attack and didn't have to shoot. sometimes bad guys get scared and comply or immediately turn and run for it
Please do not consider the above post as competent legal advice. Check your state's laws, because the above advice is flat wrong in Texas.
In Texas, shooting a firearm at someone is considered deadly force. Legal justification requires it to be in response to deadly force, or the threat of deadly force. If the perpetrator dies, you are looking at a large legal bill, regardless of the circumstances: every homicide is reviewed by a grand jury.
Note that it imposes additional requirements on top of section 9.31, which details the justifications for the use of any kind of force in self-defense.
In Texas, merely pointing a firearm at someone in self-defense is considered the use of non-deadly force. See section 9.04 at the above URL:
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
This is an important distinction, because the threshold to justify the use of non-deadly force in self-defense is lower than the threshold to justify the use of deadly force.
Also in Texas: there is legal protection against someone (or their family) suing after being injured while committing a crime. But, the law requires the perpetator to be convicted of that crime. If the perpetrator is dead, that protection is unavailable, and you would be at the mercy of the jury.
Hey motherfuckers, get yourself CCW/Self-defense "insurance".
CCW safe will cover you for self-defense with any legal weapon, even bare hands and also covers you for home and in-vehicle defense. They have unlimited criminal and civil case coverage.
They are the ones who represented George Zimmerman against Trayvon Martin and are the only ones with an actual murder case under their belt. They have the best value and experience if you do the research.
My question is, in defense of self and/or property, in Texas, I was taught "as much force as necessary, but not more", would a warning shot fall under the "that's as much force as I thought was necessary"?
Firing a shot is considered deadly force in Texas. Whether it is justified depends on the provisions of Chapter 9 that I linked above.
If you claim "I wasn't shooting at him", you still fired a shot and you can easily be prosecuted for a felony offense of "deadly conduct". See this post for the details:
In Texas, law enforcement officers are subject to different laws regarding deadly force than non-LEO. You can see the difference by reading Subchapter E in the link I provided above, which has an additional section regarding arrest and search. Even where the laws are the same, LEO's and non-LEO's are held to different standards by prosecutors and grand juries.
But, my experience has been that LEO's generally don't know the law regarding use of deadly force and even carry of firearms by non-LEO's. This has been demonstrated over and over since the CHL (now LTC) law was first enacted in 1996: CHL holders have been arrested despite compliance with the law.
I also know of a case where someone was arrested for a violation of the law, after not being informed about that provision of law by a LEO that was moonlighting as a CHL instructor. The CHL holder lost his license, but I don't know what happened to the instructor.
You put yourself in legal peril by following the advice of peace officers, unless you are a peace officer yourself.
The perpetrator doesn't have to testify. An ambulance-chasing lawyer representing the dead perpetrator's family can conjure up hypothetical arguments to a jury, and without witness testimony or other evidence, you wouldn't have any defense. In Texas, a unanimous verdict is not required for civil cases. Only 5 of 6, or 10 of 12 jurors are required.
If the perpetrator is convicted of a crime being committed at the time of injury, the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code not only bars the claim, it makes the claimant (the perpetrator or family) liable for "court costs and feeds and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending against the claim."
However, the Civil Practice and Remedies Code also provides immunity for the use of force or deadly force that was justifiable under the Penal Code (Chapter 9). But without the perpetrator's conviction, it does not provide for an award of the cost of defense against the bogus claim. An unethical lawyer could try to force you into a settlement to avoid the cost of even a slam-dunk defense.
One notable example from Florida: even though George Zimmerman was found not guilty in a criminal trial, his homeowner's association quickly settled with Martin's family shortly after he was arrested. I'm not claiming that Florida law is the same as Texas, but it's an object example of how civil lawsuits can be wielded as a weapon.
Yes, Texas Penal Code § 9.31. Self-Defense
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
Simple trespass is not a justification for use of deadly force. See Texas Penal Code 9.41 (a):
A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
However, if the trespass includes one of these conditions (from PC 9.32), deadly force in self-defense is justified:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
So, if a perpetrator breaks into your habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment, it's considered reasonable to assume they are hostile. Outside those locations, the unlawful use of deadly force and a handful of assaultive offenses are justification of use of deadly force in self-defense:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In Texas, aggravated means the offense was committed with the use of, or threat of deadly force. Also worth noting: deadly force is defined thusly:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
The last part is an important distinction that arose during the very first self-defense case involving a CHL holder in Texas: case law in Texas has established blows about the head and neck to be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. In fact, the CHL holder suffered eye damage (retinal detachment, if I remember correctly), and that was a "serious bodily injury".
Finally, deadly force can only be used to protect property under a limited set of conditions in PC 9.42:
(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;
There are some other conditions, and you can read the entire law in context to find them.
You can look up the legal definition of "force" as easily as I can. Then, you can explain how it is relevant to your original question:
Can that criminal activity be trespassing?
Again: under Texas law, criminal trespass alone is not justification for the use of deadly force, unless it is into a vehicle, habitation, or place of employment. Vehicle and habitation are defined by reference to PC 30.01:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes: (A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and (B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
(3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such devices as are classified as "habitation."
Therefore, only non-deadly force is justifiable to prevent trespass or remove a trespasser. And back to your original bogus claim: simply displaying a firearm is considered non-deadly force in Texas.
However, commission of certain property crimes while trespassing is justification for the use of deadly force in defense of property. It's a short list, with a number of restrictions. Knowing them can save you a lot of grief.
I'm trying to help you learn the limits on the use of deadly force in Texas. Perhaps you should shut up for a few minutes and read the references I provide, instead of spouting off more bullshit.
Seriously though, what exactly do you tell the cops? Specifically? Terrible situation for a law abiding citizen to be put in but it is becoming increasingly possible with the way the radical left is going. Also, do you unload on the murderer even after they fall to the ground?
Don’t continue to shoot someone that is incapacitated. It looks bad to a jury. Jurors think that if it’s self defense then you’ll stop shooting when the threat it stopped, even though that is not at all how humans work. When people’s lives are actually put in danger they tend to snap and oftentimes will overkill or even desecrate a body out of rage. But don’t do that, it can be illegal and can turn a self defense into a murder to a jury. But if possible you should fire so fast that you’ve unloaded the gun before he’s got the ground.
Don’t say anything to the cops, other than maybe that you need a doctor and definitely that you need a lawyer. If you have something to say that will help you, it may not even be admissible in court. But if you say something that’s bad for you (and you likely will) it’s admissible by the state as a statement by party opponent. That’s why you don’t talk to the police. At a trial it’s not just that anything you said can be used against you, it’s that it often can ONLY be used against you.
I really don't fucking care anymore. Law and order doesn't exist for normal folks. You are going to go to prison or end up in a body bag. Make peace with God, yourself and your familly and fucking shoot them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe warning shots are aggravated assault charges for every person in the area -- so if there's 10 folks and you fire 1 "warning shot", guess what--that's 10 AgAssaults. Each AgAssault is like 2-7 years, and it's an easy win by the prosecutor.
Original poster is correct--never fire a "warning shot".
On the other hand--here's a nice little rioting defense tip--at least in Arizona, and in other states, we have "Disparity of Force" which means if a group (more than one) of persons attacked you and none of them even had any weapons, you could still shoot all except for one of them. Once, you're down to one person, it goes back to non-deadly defense, unless that person pulled a knife or gun on you. Disparity of force also works if a single attacker is MUCH bigger than you, or similarly advantaged.
Republicans need to disband the police, form posses, and handle the communists how we should’ve been handling them. It’s our only chance at saving this nation. Democrats have won the battle to indoctrinate younger generations.
Call 911:
"I was attacked, feared for my life and had to defend myself."
"Please send BOTH police and an ambulance to this location."
...
"I will cooperate 100 percent, but first I need my attorney."
This in particular is going to become a major issue if these riots continue to advance into suburbs and rural areas.
Is a rabid mob, chanting anti-white slogans, walking down your street with flaming molotov cocktails an immediate threat to your life? Do you have to wait until they're literally throwing them at you or your home to do something? IMO, A molotov cocktail is not a defense weapon, it's a terrorist incendiary. The mere act of lighting one makes you terrorist and absolves you of your rights.
However, the left will argue that they only intended to destroy your property (as if that in and of itself is an excuse for wanton violence). So long as you come out with your hands up, bend the knee and let them burn your house down, everything will be okay!
Anyone walking down my rural road shouting crazy shit will be watched...be carrying dangerous shit will get you followed...threatening me or my neighbors will get you shot... god damn the consequences and pass more ammo
Difference is BLM has the full support of mayors/governors/DAs. A random person defending themselves doesn't have that perk.
It's also a lot of work to prosecute BLM. There are lots of them, they're armed with IEDs and Lasers, and they like to "de-arrest" people. Arresting a normal person is easy work, they just surrender.
If you intentionally wound one of these terrorists, with a leg-shot, you lie and claim to have bad aim. If you declare that you intended to wound, you hurt your legal defense.
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
Note that it's the capability, not the outcome. Shooting someone is use of deadly force, period.
The only distinction is if a jury finds the shooting was not a justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense. If not, it would be aggravated assault or a homicide.
This is problematic. You should do what is appropriate for the situation. There are situations where it might be appropriate to fire a warning shot. If a bunch of people are running at you to attack you, then you might fire a warning shot before they get into the range where you need to fire lethal shots.
I suspect the real problem with warning shots is that there's a very narrow window between firing a warning shot and a lethal shot where it's valid. In many circumstances it can be seconds, too short to be useful. I don't believe however that the law can possibly know all possible circumstances.
I would assume the cases where firing a warning shot would be legal or appropriate is where if the threat does not stop promptly your next shot will be lethal. If there's not an inevitable lethal shot unless the warning shot achieves its goal then there shouldn't be a warning shot either.
There's the chicken argument that they were going to stop in the last moment playing chicken but I think that's stupid when it's only the person they're rushing that knows what that distance is.
Essentially correct. If you're justified in shooting them, you're justified in shooting at them. Guy threatened to kill me, ran toward me with a mob and molotov cocktail. I shoot and miss (warning shot). They decide to run the other direction. No crime was committed by me.
These are just two pundits. They make invalid arguments. For example he says because he's big then in a physical altercation it would not likely be justified for him to reach for his gun. He's right that might be a bias or if you're talking odds but not in a given specific situation. In a given specific situation if you feel in danger that's enough. If someone physically attacks me I'm not going to take my chances on being bigger I'm going to shoot to kill unless they are so fortunate such that circumstances offer me a bit more than that to be sure of my safety.
Self defence doesn't require you to gamble with your life. Also if you can reach for your gun so can they so you pretty much have to kill them. Generally speaking it's not good to go around physically attacking people for no good and legal reason.
Maybe if it's a normal fight between mates and you know no one will go to far but if it's something like BLM randomly attacking you then you don't know where they stop.
I'm not advising people take warning shots but the absolutist legal interpretations are questionable. You should pretty much play it safe with warning shots as lethal shots.
In these situations it's damned if you do damned if you don't. If firing a warning shot could save you firing a lethal shot well does it matter? Either way you're going to have to go to court and risk facing the music.
I suspect either your law is broken beyond the point of being fit for purpose or people are relying on trial outcomes without looking at the specifics of the case.
A warning shot without a follow up is the worst thing. Should never be a bluff or people get used to ignoring it.
I guess based on this which looks very fishy to me:
I suspect details of the case are actually that she was not immediately under threat. Based on other witness statements and evidence and basically the jury didn't believe her.
For sure! I usually assume most posters here are male unless the username makes it clear, need to remember that’s not the case! And my girlfriend wasn’t big on pistols but due to all the BS lately she wants to learn to shoot one and get a CCW. Another one joining the 2A club!
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of: (1) one or more individuals; or (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
I read of a case long ago where someone was charged with deadly conduct after shooting out a tire of someone that had just assaulted him to prevent him from fleeing.
Hey Everyone, This is the biggest bunch of hogwash, concern-troll bullshit I've ever seen.
Respond in the manner you deem necessary to protect your life and your loved ones. The Constitution is on your side. If you're on the slow side and can't make a case for defending your life, liberty, and property, then at least you're not dead. If you DO have sufficient intelligence... then worry about the consequences later.
Defend yourself and your property any way you see fit. Do not be hindered by "whether or not this is legal" if you are in a life or death situation.
I didn't say make a "stupid, uneducated choice," now, did I?
I said do what you deem is necessary - which is better than second-guessing in a life and death situation. And trust me, your gut is better than this advice.
Wrong! Warning shots are entirely legal in the state of Florida!
If you're in Florida and in imminent fear great bodily harm or death for not only yourself but others around you, YOU CAN FIRE A WARNING SHOT IF YOU WOULD LIKE!
Now, if these conditions above are met, you're also legally clear to shoot them instead which is the preferred option!
Another bit of advice - if someone is the aggressor, they cannot use self-defense as a defense in court. However, if someone starts some shit with you and you escalate it by bringing out your gun for example, they can regain the right to use self-defense if they i) communicate that they are giving up and ii) attempt to retreat from the fight.
Long story short, if an asshole starts shit with you and then attempts to retreat when you pull out your firearm, don't think you are justified in using force (deadly or non-deadly) - you basically must allow them to retreat or you may be criminally liable.
Yes. And lots of this stuff seems very common sense, but once tempers are flying and violence occurs (it happens in an instant), shit gets murky and one might think they are justified using force against someone who in the laws of nature definitely deserves it. Nice post again, OP!
I know in advance this is controversial and at odds with what is smart or sensible, but I feel the need to point out that for some people, their moral code does not allow them to shoot first or aim to kill.
I know a dedicated Christian who served in war and shot and killed people and believes that was morally justified because it was war. However, in his home, his shotgun is armed with rock salt and bird shot. He would rather risk dying than have to live with his conscience over killing someone.
Everything OP says is 100% the smart thing to do legally, but I still think there are some people who would rather risk getting charged with discharge of a firearm than escalate to lethal action.
When your in a situation like Kenosha downtown area and you know the police are not coming then you do what is necessary to stop it. When chaos comes for you, your not giving a shit about any laws. Your doing what you need to do to save your community.
Your heart starts to pump. Your Adrenalin starts to flow. Eyes get tack sharp. Ears hear everything. Sometimes the thought "fuck it" is exactly what is needed. Hell fuckin yes ill fire a warning shot, Don't want to kill them if a scare will do the job instead.
If people are out in the street and have weapons, do i wait for them to form drum circles and keep me up all night? Do i wait for my home to burn down?
No warning shots, they are illegal and you WILL take the ride AND go to prison. This shows (a court not a normal person) that you did not fear for your life adequately.
The logic here is mind boggling. I can be in fear for my life and still not want to have to kill someone who I believe has intent to harm me.
How can you not make the case that a warning shot is a proclamation that you will defend yourself with lethal force and you know how to do it?
I don't even think going out there to try and instigate a fight is a good idea. These riots are red pilling so many people about what happens when you embrace Dem's vision of the world. Obviously if they come to your hood and try to hurt you though I wouldn't fault anyone for trying to defend themselves. Don't underestimate though how many normies are being converted because it's so blatant now which party is the violent lawless one.
Agreed. Gun sales are an excellent and oft overlooked barometer of political sentiment. My local shop tells me 1/2 to 2/3 of sales are to new gun owners.
CCW safe will cover you for self-defense with any legal weapon, even bare hands and also covers you for home and in-vehicle defense. They have unlimited criminal and civil case coverage.
They are the ones who represented George Zimmerman against Trayvon Martin and are the only ones with an actual murder case under their belt. They have the best value and experience if you do the research.
You really think anyone confronting a mob and having to shoot should call 911 so they go to jail for months while on trial, then antifa doxxes you with the public info to ruin or kill you, so on and so on?
I'm not fucking stupid. If it's a riot, the rules are out the window.
The problem is that while murder will be taken to a grand jury who will almost always side with moral customs trying to step in your shoes, discharging a weapon will be handled by a bureaucrat that won't do the same exercise and will stick to a logical rigid system.
It is nothing wrong with the concept of warning shots themselves. If you go to a grand jury for murder and you did fire warning shots before killing the perpetrator that will definitely be seen in a better light.
The fucked up part is if your warning shot works you're fucked because you don't go to a grand jury.
Warning shot: shooting the guy on the left is a warning to the guy to his right.
Once you pull the trigger, there are only 2 modes of operation:
anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting as many times as you have rounds in your magazine
Rule #2: Double tap
This is correct. It’s a lot easier to make the case that you were afraid for your life if you unloaded the clip. If you pop them in the head with one shot, that doesn’t look like you were afraid for your life, even though it is badass.
Veterans might have some give on this
Not all veterans are created equal...
I've known a few service members that barely knew the basic rule of 'point the barrel at the bad guy and not at your friends'. They were usually the ones that failed weapons qualification by shooting someone else's target.
Cough MEDCOM/TRADOC has its place but don’t give them a gun
"Anything you say WILL be used AGAINST you in a court of law." Nothing you say will be used in your favor.
"I have no recollection"
Judge: you're free to go, you dindunuffin
Kek
I love this place
Sigh.... * unzips *
If you ain’t shootin’ you’re reloadin’. If you ain’t reloadin’ you're moving.
If you ain’t movin’ you’re dead.
Fully automatic assault chainsaw bayonet
but couldn't a court deem that as excessive putting 17 rounds in a guy?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyregion/nypd-detective-shot.html
Shoot the one closest and therefore the most dangerous once. Then second closest and so on until you get to the one in the back, he gets the double tap. Then start over from the front.
Roadhouse rules, everyone gets first before anyone gets seconds.
But but BUT Uncle Joe said to shoot a shotgun up in the air HOW CAN IT BE ILLEGAL REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
/s
Yakov Smirnoff “Vat A Country!”
Back when he was semi-conscious
Back when he knew when he way lying.
He’s a dumbass and made that up on the spot. His handlers were likely pissed off about that.
Fool said to shoot a shotgun through a closed door.
Like hell he loves the USPS.
He also said two shots from a double barrel. Now you have to reload.
make sure to wear your mandatory mask when shooting in the air or at looters.
Use a revolver
A heavy one. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work, you hit him with it.
Boris the blade
You sir gets an upvote
Shotgoons? You mean like goons that fire shot?
Yea, I like dags
My wife is into reality homicide shows. It’s taught me if you ever wanted to murder someone, use a revolver so you don’t leave casings behind.
👆
This allows you to keep your brass- no planting evidence like the Soros DA in St. Louis
Wisconsin, castle doctrine state.. First rioter though your front door of home OR business can be met with lead
Bring the whole gang in! Been meaning to update ammo counts.
Save the audits for Nov. 4th. No sense doing a job twice.
I think that is the week of my boating accident.
Get ready for the biggest boating accident parade on record, folks!
Virginia is completely fucked up. They can burn down my house and unless my life is directly threatened I'm not even allowed to hold a gun in self-defense. Criminals are allowed to run wild, but God help me if I want to shake hands with my neighbors in church. There aren't enough honks in the world to describe how crazy things have become around here.
Its sad that one of the first American colonies and a key state in the American revolution has fallen so hard..
Happens in red states too if they have a Soros DA
In Norway if someone breaks into your home you have to wait for them to attack you, and you can only use equal force back
Is it through the door on on the property? Important distinction there and one that makes a world of difference (rioters can burn your house down without ever stepping through the door).
Yeah I've thought and wondered about that situation too.. Can you shoot the person throwing the Molotov on the street?
Yes. You are in fear of your life. Arson is a forceable felony, i remember the statute saying this for my state.
I want to know this also. If you see Mmolitov cocktails being lit in front of your house, do you have the right to shoot or just burn alive?
I'd imagine unless you have witnesses to back you up or good CCTV footage it could be a tough sell... But still better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 leaving your family behind or dead in your burned home. Any law pedes here willing to dig for cases, we may need to know these things soon!
If they are actually lighting a firebottle it should be pretty evident when it catches everybody on fire.
And a damn good shot ;)
If you can explain why your life was in danger and it’s reasonable to a jury, then absolutely it’s justifiable.
I hate to be the internet tough guy, and I would never give this advice lightly. Me personally, if I was trapped and I saw someone lighting a molotov in clear line of site with no mistake what they were planning. I'd take it, law be damned.
Protect your family first, get judge by 12 than having your entire family carried by 6. Just my 2 cents.
We think much alike
Prison can't be much worse than the kind of world we will soon be living in.
Damn right...
That's why you got to go roof top!
From reading the statutes, Arson is a forceable felony and can be met with deadly force.
Not in TX, if you are lawfully in an area and have an immanent fear of your life or bodily harm you may use deadly force
Same in Oregon, I believe.
They'll try to get you for brandishing if you use the visible threat of a weapon to cow rioters ala the McCloskeys.
Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 776.012. Use or threatened use of force in defense of person
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection **does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground **if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
What about xerself?
It's free helicopter rides for these ones.
What about NY or californistan?
Both NY and CA are NOT stand your ground states, they have the duty to retreat
Hell, in OK we can meet a threat of violence towards even another person with deadly force.
remember short controlled bursts
Just think, giving a warning shot is an attempt to stop someone from doing what they’re doing outside of just shooting them! You are actually giving them a choice of life or death, just that moment of reconsideration. But it is illegal. Sadly, they can burn down our buildings with no justice put upon them but if we give them that choice of “life or death” we get arrested. Sooooo, you know what to do.
Just aim the "warning" shot at them, if you hit, problem solved. If you don't, hopefully they receive the warning.
No, every bullet fired has a lawyer attached.
Pointing the gun is threatening. Pulling the trigger is discharging a deadly weapon, and that bullet is going to hit something.
Also, regardless of what your laws say, do not point your gun at anything you don't intend to immediately destroy.
The bill signed by Gov Rick Scott in 2014 was created specifically for warning shots which is why it's called "the warning shot bill".
The moral of this story is that in the heat of a battle your focus is ONLY on the one or possible multiple combatants wanting to kill you so you may lose focus of the surroundings.. If your shot wasn't in direct response to saving your life and it ends someone else well, the tides will turn and you are technically now the aggressor
Even in case where a warning shot is legal you still need to really be careful. Always with guns. A warning shot can go wrong still or is a great way to start a gun fight if they don't know if it's a warning shot or they're being shot at.
A gun shouldn't be brandished at any time until you're ready to aim and pull the trigger though.
At that point you'd be using it not "brandishing" anyways. I do think there are acceptable times when people have thwarted an attack and didn't have to shoot. sometimes bad guys get scared and comply or immediately turn and run for it
The warning was the appearance of the firearm. If they didn't get it they're too stupid to understand a warning shot either
Please do not consider the above post as competent legal advice. Check your state's laws, because the above advice is flat wrong in Texas.
In Texas, shooting a firearm at someone is considered deadly force. Legal justification requires it to be in response to deadly force, or the threat of deadly force. If the perpetrator dies, you are looking at a large legal bill, regardless of the circumstances: every homicide is reviewed by a grand jury.
For the details, see section 9.32 here:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Note that it imposes additional requirements on top of section 9.31, which details the justifications for the use of any kind of force in self-defense.
In Texas, merely pointing a firearm at someone in self-defense is considered the use of non-deadly force. See section 9.04 at the above URL:
This is an important distinction, because the threshold to justify the use of non-deadly force in self-defense is lower than the threshold to justify the use of deadly force.
Also in Texas: there is legal protection against someone (or their family) suing after being injured while committing a crime. But, the law requires the perpetator to be convicted of that crime. If the perpetrator is dead, that protection is unavailable, and you would be at the mercy of the jury.
Hey motherfuckers, get yourself CCW/Self-defense "insurance".
CCW safe will cover you for self-defense with any legal weapon, even bare hands and also covers you for home and in-vehicle defense. They have unlimited criminal and civil case coverage.
They are the ones who represented George Zimmerman against Trayvon Martin and are the only ones with an actual murder case under their belt. They have the best value and experience if you do the research.
Yeah I have USCCA insurance. Hope I never need to use it.
Been meaning to buy it. Bet rates are climbing
I wouldn't want to be them and have to represent a case like George Zimmerman these days. Would be pretty expensive and stressful.
Yep, I've CCW Safe because they are the only ones who have successfully defended a murder 1 charge.
Sounds like you have looked into it.
My question is, in defense of self and/or property, in Texas, I was taught "as much force as necessary, but not more", would a warning shot fall under the "that's as much force as I thought was necessary"?
Or was what I was taught off base?
Once again, if Molotov cocktails are lit and ready to throw, is that a threat of deadly force?
A bomb or incendiary weapon is a deadly weapon
Also a destructive device according to the ATF.
Firing a shot is considered deadly force in Texas. Whether it is justified depends on the provisions of Chapter 9 that I linked above.
If you claim "I wasn't shooting at him", you still fired a shot and you can easily be prosecuted for a felony offense of "deadly conduct". See this post for the details:
https://thedonald.win/p/GvKUWn7S/x/c/15K6JNKeVY
Not in Texas. Read my posting again, and keep re-reading until you get it.
In Texas, you guarantee a trip to the grand jury and all the associated legal fees.
If the trial jury decides that only non-deadly force was justified, you'll go to jail.
This is why I originally posted:
I'm not an attorney, but I've had this exact discussion with a criminal defense attorney.
No one should consider your lame chest-beating as competent legal advice.
In Texas, law enforcement officers are subject to different laws regarding deadly force than non-LEO. You can see the difference by reading Subchapter E in the link I provided above, which has an additional section regarding arrest and search. Even where the laws are the same, LEO's and non-LEO's are held to different standards by prosecutors and grand juries.
But, my experience has been that LEO's generally don't know the law regarding use of deadly force and even carry of firearms by non-LEO's. This has been demonstrated over and over since the CHL (now LTC) law was first enacted in 1996: CHL holders have been arrested despite compliance with the law.
I also know of a case where someone was arrested for a violation of the law, after not being informed about that provision of law by a LEO that was moonlighting as a CHL instructor. The CHL holder lost his license, but I don't know what happened to the instructor.
You put yourself in legal peril by following the advice of peace officers, unless you are a peace officer yourself.
How is a corpse going to argue before a jury that it didn't threaten you with deadly force?
Everything youdo is filmed
The perpetrator doesn't have to testify. An ambulance-chasing lawyer representing the dead perpetrator's family can conjure up hypothetical arguments to a jury, and without witness testimony or other evidence, you wouldn't have any defense. In Texas, a unanimous verdict is not required for civil cases. Only 5 of 6, or 10 of 12 jurors are required.
If the perpetrator is convicted of a crime being committed at the time of injury, the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code not only bars the claim, it makes the claimant (the perpetrator or family) liable for "court costs and feeds and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending against the claim."
However, the Civil Practice and Remedies Code also provides immunity for the use of force or deadly force that was justifiable under the Penal Code (Chapter 9). But without the perpetrator's conviction, it does not provide for an award of the cost of defense against the bogus claim. An unethical lawyer could try to force you into a settlement to avoid the cost of even a slam-dunk defense.
One notable example from Florida: even though George Zimmerman was found not guilty in a criminal trial, his homeowner's association quickly settled with Martin's family shortly after he was arrested. I'm not claiming that Florida law is the same as Texas, but it's an object example of how civil lawsuits can be wielded as a weapon.
What if you have two handguns and one is loaded with blanks, and you use that one to shoot a warning shot? A blank is not deadly.
No, but the gun is still deadly. you get charged for armed robbery if u use fake guns as well
What if you installed a very loud speaker on your car that made a convincing gunshot noise every time you click the hazard button?
Not with stand your ground, you can use any means necessary to descelate the situation, even lethal force
Yes, Texas Penal Code § 9.31. Self-Defense (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
Simple trespass is not a justification for use of deadly force. See Texas Penal Code 9.41 (a):
However, if the trespass includes one of these conditions (from PC 9.32), deadly force in self-defense is justified:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
So, if a perpetrator breaks into your habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment, it's considered reasonable to assume they are hostile. Outside those locations, the unlawful use of deadly force and a handful of assaultive offenses are justification of use of deadly force in self-defense:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In Texas, aggravated means the offense was committed with the use of, or threat of deadly force. Also worth noting: deadly force is defined thusly:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
The last part is an important distinction that arose during the very first self-defense case involving a CHL holder in Texas: case law in Texas has established blows about the head and neck to be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. In fact, the CHL holder suffered eye damage (retinal detachment, if I remember correctly), and that was a "serious bodily injury".
Finally, deadly force can only be used to protect property under a limited set of conditions in PC 9.42:
(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;
There are some other conditions, and you can read the entire law in context to find them.
You can look up the legal definition of "force" as easily as I can. Then, you can explain how it is relevant to your original question:
Again: under Texas law, criminal trespass alone is not justification for the use of deadly force, unless it is into a vehicle, habitation, or place of employment. Vehicle and habitation are defined by reference to PC 30.01:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm#30.01
Therefore, only non-deadly force is justifiable to prevent trespass or remove a trespasser. And back to your original bogus claim: simply displaying a firearm is considered non-deadly force in Texas.
However, commission of certain property crimes while trespassing is justification for the use of deadly force in defense of property. It's a short list, with a number of restrictions. Knowing them can save you a lot of grief.
I'm trying to help you learn the limits on the use of deadly force in Texas. Perhaps you should shut up for a few minutes and read the references I provide, instead of spouting off more bullshit.
Can you elaborate? Why do you tell the ER doctor that?
You fake mental illness , “I’m so scared for my life, I killed that jogger”
And probably shut up in your own house, on the phone, etc because of devices that may be listening (or in the near future).
Seriously though, what exactly do you tell the cops? Specifically? Terrible situation for a law abiding citizen to be put in but it is becoming increasingly possible with the way the radical left is going. Also, do you unload on the murderer even after they fall to the ground?
Don’t continue to shoot someone that is incapacitated. It looks bad to a jury. Jurors think that if it’s self defense then you’ll stop shooting when the threat it stopped, even though that is not at all how humans work. When people’s lives are actually put in danger they tend to snap and oftentimes will overkill or even desecrate a body out of rage. But don’t do that, it can be illegal and can turn a self defense into a murder to a jury. But if possible you should fire so fast that you’ve unloaded the gun before he’s got the ground. Don’t say anything to the cops, other than maybe that you need a doctor and definitely that you need a lawyer. If you have something to say that will help you, it may not even be admissible in court. But if you say something that’s bad for you (and you likely will) it’s admissible by the state as a statement by party opponent. That’s why you don’t talk to the police. At a trial it’s not just that anything you said can be used against you, it’s that it often can ONLY be used against you.
Is it shut the fuck up friday already?
The only good communist is a dead communist.
I really don't fucking care anymore. Law and order doesn't exist for normal folks. You are going to go to prison or end up in a body bag. Make peace with God, yourself and your familly and fucking shoot them.
The 3-S rules:
When you ask a real fren to grab a shovel, they just grab the shovel.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
lol, shovel might get you into some trouble.
Republicans need to lobby for more lax gun laws. Warning shots should be legal.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe warning shots are aggravated assault charges for every person in the area -- so if there's 10 folks and you fire 1 "warning shot", guess what--that's 10 AgAssaults. Each AgAssault is like 2-7 years, and it's an easy win by the prosecutor.
Original poster is correct--never fire a "warning shot".
On the other hand--here's a nice little rioting defense tip--at least in Arizona, and in other states, we have "Disparity of Force" which means if a group (more than one) of persons attacked you and none of them even had any weapons, you could still shoot all except for one of them. Once, you're down to one person, it goes back to non-deadly defense, unless that person pulled a knife or gun on you. Disparity of force also works if a single attacker is MUCH bigger than you, or similarly advantaged.
I can tell you are not a lawyer because they usually say "depending on the state you're in" all the time before telling you things like you're saying
Hmmm, maybe you could also tell because the first 4 words of my post are literally "I'm not a lawyer'?
I get the sentiment but you can't counter sue in criminal proceedings lol.
I want more gun laws - I want a gun law that says it's illegal to make it illegal.
LIBS WONT KNOW WHAT TO DO!
Republicans need to disband the police, form posses, and handle the communists how we should’ve been handling them. It’s our only chance at saving this nation. Democrats have won the battle to indoctrinate younger generations.
From my USCCA Card:
Call 911: "I was attacked, feared for my life and had to defend myself." "Please send BOTH police and an ambulance to this location." ... "I will cooperate 100 percent, but first I need my attorney."
This in particular is going to become a major issue if these riots continue to advance into suburbs and rural areas.
Is a rabid mob, chanting anti-white slogans, walking down your street with flaming molotov cocktails an immediate threat to your life? Do you have to wait until they're literally throwing them at you or your home to do something? IMO, A molotov cocktail is not a defense weapon, it's a terrorist incendiary. The mere act of lighting one makes you terrorist and absolves you of your rights.
However, the left will argue that they only intended to destroy your property (as if that in and of itself is an excuse for wanton violence). So long as you come out with your hands up, bend the knee and let them burn your house down, everything will be okay!
Anyone walking down my rural road shouting crazy shit will be watched...be carrying dangerous shit will get you followed...threatening me or my neighbors will get you shot... god damn the consequences and pass more ammo
YOU can yell "PEW PEW" or "WARNING SHOTS".
So yelling FORE is not okay?
It's only okay if you also hit them in the forehead, and yell it after the shot.
Not if you're trying to kill someone with a golf ball.
Is that only if there is an intent to back it up and not as a warning in self defense or used to inform of potential danger not coming from yourself?
Good point.
Thank You
Sir, you seem to be approaching...
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
THE DANGER ZOOOONEEE!!!
Or suppressed fire.
Maybe a loud speaker with a recording of semi automatic shots would be useful to play in the background.
Wouldn't need any shots if people just put the damn record player on at night.
this is the correct answer
We don't need guns anymore, just announce that you're positive for COVID and cough in their direction. Will send em running for the hills.
I'd throw an Alla-seltzer tablet in my mouth and tell them I have Rabies. And I need to bite someone.
Difference is BLM has the full support of mayors/governors/DAs. A random person defending themselves doesn't have that perk.
It's also a lot of work to prosecute BLM. There are lots of them, they're armed with IEDs and Lasers, and they like to "de-arrest" people. Arresting a normal person is easy work, they just surrender.
Fucking clown world
Also, don't go hunting with Dick Cheney.
Seems blurry. https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/gun-laws-by-state/vermont/
Are you a VT pede???
Hahaha I was wondering if you were 1 of the 3 pedes up there. I was curious why you picked VT?
VT reads a little more friendly than NJ. I think they have it specifically called out
Wrong. In Calif. you have a duty to assist the bugler.
"No wounding" is false. Not everyone dies from a gunshot.
Woosh...
If you intentionally wound one of these terrorists, with a leg-shot, you lie and claim to have bad aim. If you declare that you intended to wound, you hurt your legal defense.
What he meant was intentionally aiming for the legs or arms.
Cockshots are my favourite though. Bring back RoboCop.
This is true, at least in Texas:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Note that it's the capability, not the outcome. Shooting someone is use of deadly force, period.
The only distinction is if a jury finds the shooting was not a justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense. If not, it would be aggravated assault or a homicide.
Driving your car on the motor way at the max speed is use of deadly force.
True. But buried six feet will always finish the job except for the Bride in Kill Bill 2
This is problematic. You should do what is appropriate for the situation. There are situations where it might be appropriate to fire a warning shot. If a bunch of people are running at you to attack you, then you might fire a warning shot before they get into the range where you need to fire lethal shots.
I suspect the real problem with warning shots is that there's a very narrow window between firing a warning shot and a lethal shot where it's valid. In many circumstances it can be seconds, too short to be useful. I don't believe however that the law can possibly know all possible circumstances.
I would assume the cases where firing a warning shot would be legal or appropriate is where if the threat does not stop promptly your next shot will be lethal. If there's not an inevitable lethal shot unless the warning shot achieves its goal then there shouldn't be a warning shot either.
There's the chicken argument that they were going to stop in the last moment playing chicken but I think that's stupid when it's only the person they're rushing that knows what that distance is.
Essentially correct. If you're justified in shooting them, you're justified in shooting at them. Guy threatened to kill me, ran toward me with a mob and molotov cocktail. I shoot and miss (warning shot). They decide to run the other direction. No crime was committed by me.
These are just two pundits. They make invalid arguments. For example he says because he's big then in a physical altercation it would not likely be justified for him to reach for his gun. He's right that might be a bias or if you're talking odds but not in a given specific situation. In a given specific situation if you feel in danger that's enough. If someone physically attacks me I'm not going to take my chances on being bigger I'm going to shoot to kill unless they are so fortunate such that circumstances offer me a bit more than that to be sure of my safety.
Self defence doesn't require you to gamble with your life. Also if you can reach for your gun so can they so you pretty much have to kill them. Generally speaking it's not good to go around physically attacking people for no good and legal reason.
Maybe if it's a normal fight between mates and you know no one will go to far but if it's something like BLM randomly attacking you then you don't know where they stop.
I'm not advising people take warning shots but the absolutist legal interpretations are questionable. You should pretty much play it safe with warning shots as lethal shots.
In these situations it's damned if you do damned if you don't. If firing a warning shot could save you firing a lethal shot well does it matter? Either way you're going to have to go to court and risk facing the music.
I suspect either your law is broken beyond the point of being fit for purpose or people are relying on trial outcomes without looking at the specifics of the case.
A warning shot without a follow up is the worst thing. Should never be a bluff or people get used to ignoring it.
I guess based on this which looks very fishy to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case
I suspect details of the case are actually that she was not immediately under threat. Based on other witness statements and evidence and basically the jury didn't believe her.
http://www.younghipandconservative.com/2013/08/your-marissa-alexander-narrative-is-lie.html
This is a good read. Anticipating the law and understanding it including verdicts is not always as easy as it seems.
do fireworks have a use in a mob situation?
Never fire a warning shot. If you are not in enough danger to kill, you should not pull the trigger.
911 records the call BEFORE they answer.
How Your 911 Call Can Get You Sent to Prison
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrNFrUi-x8
What to say to responding officers, THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-apRx8WNn_w
That’s good info. Followed ASP recently but haven’t seen those. Thanks brotha.
Sista... lol.
My apologies sis!
No worries, just know there are pro 2a women here too!
For sure! I usually assume most posters here are male unless the username makes it clear, need to remember that’s not the case! And my girlfriend wasn’t big on pistols but due to all the BS lately she wants to learn to shoot one and get a CCW. Another one joining the 2A club!
See if there is a Women on Target or if a Girl and a Gun in your area to get her started.
https://wot.nra.org/ https://www.agirlandagun.org/
Summer CC holsters, because women wear different clothes than men.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UvKaaj6e7Vk
Thanks for the links! Appreciate it
LOL! ‘Watch your social media posts’ as he posts something guaranteed to produce risky comments. 😂
Meh we’ll just say a Russian bot stole our identity.
As I wrote below, know the law in your state. Competent legal advice in one state doesn't necessary apply in another state.
In Texas, a warning shot could easily be considered "deadly conduct", which is a felony:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm
See section 22.05:
I read of a case long ago where someone was charged with deadly conduct after shooting out a tire of someone that had just assaulted him to prevent him from fleeing.
What about blanks?
My God...
Hey Everyone, This is the biggest bunch of hogwash, concern-troll bullshit I've ever seen.
Respond in the manner you deem necessary to protect your life and your loved ones. The Constitution is on your side. If you're on the slow side and can't make a case for defending your life, liberty, and property, then at least you're not dead. If you DO have sufficient intelligence... then worry about the consequences later.
Defend yourself and your property any way you see fit. Do not be hindered by "whether or not this is legal" if you are in a life or death situation.
Live now. Fight later.
I didn't say make a "stupid, uneducated choice," now, did I?
I said do what you deem is necessary - which is better than second-guessing in a life and death situation. And trust me, your gut is better than this advice.
If you're in a situation where your post history on TD.win is admissible in court, then you brought it on yourself. May God bless you.
Wrong! Warning shots are entirely legal in the state of Florida!
If you're in Florida and in imminent fear great bodily harm or death for not only yourself but others around you, YOU CAN FIRE A WARNING SHOT IF YOU WOULD LIKE!
Now, if these conditions above are met, you're also legally clear to shoot them instead which is the preferred option!
Yeah, that was the suffix.
Great post.
Another bit of advice - if someone is the aggressor, they cannot use self-defense as a defense in court. However, if someone starts some shit with you and you escalate it by bringing out your gun for example, they can regain the right to use self-defense if they i) communicate that they are giving up and ii) attempt to retreat from the fight.
Long story short, if an asshole starts shit with you and then attempts to retreat when you pull out your firearm, don't think you are justified in using force (deadly or non-deadly) - you basically must allow them to retreat or you may be criminally liable.
Yes. And lots of this stuff seems very common sense, but once tempers are flying and violence occurs (it happens in an instant), shit gets murky and one might think they are justified using force against someone who in the laws of nature definitely deserves it. Nice post again, OP!
And get CCW insurance! It’s cheap!
If I'm doing something that requires me to invoke my USCCA policy, I'm not taking any half-measures.
I know in advance this is controversial and at odds with what is smart or sensible, but I feel the need to point out that for some people, their moral code does not allow them to shoot first or aim to kill.
I know a dedicated Christian who served in war and shot and killed people and believes that was morally justified because it was war. However, in his home, his shotgun is armed with rock salt and bird shot. He would rather risk dying than have to live with his conscience over killing someone.
Everything OP says is 100% the smart thing to do legally, but I still think there are some people who would rather risk getting charged with discharge of a firearm than escalate to lethal action.
When your in a situation like Kenosha downtown area and you know the police are not coming then you do what is necessary to stop it. When chaos comes for you, your not giving a shit about any laws. Your doing what you need to do to save your community.
Your heart starts to pump. Your Adrenalin starts to flow. Eyes get tack sharp. Ears hear everything. Sometimes the thought "fuck it" is exactly what is needed. Hell fuckin yes ill fire a warning shot, Don't want to kill them if a scare will do the job instead.
If people are out in the street and have weapons, do i wait for them to form drum circles and keep me up all night? Do i wait for my home to burn down?
All this shit is going out the window very soon.
After the first, the rest are free.
The logic here is mind boggling. I can be in fear for my life and still not want to have to kill someone who I believe has intent to harm me.
How can you not make the case that a warning shot is a proclamation that you will defend yourself with lethal force and you know how to do it?
I don't even think going out there to try and instigate a fight is a good idea. These riots are red pilling so many people about what happens when you embrace Dem's vision of the world. Obviously if they come to your hood and try to hurt you though I wouldn't fault anyone for trying to defend themselves. Don't underestimate though how many normies are being converted because it's so blatant now which party is the violent lawless one.
Agreed. Gun sales are an excellent and oft overlooked barometer of political sentiment. My local shop tells me 1/2 to 2/3 of sales are to new gun owners.
Get yourselves CCW/Self-defense "insurance".
CCW safe will cover you for self-defense with any legal weapon, even bare hands and also covers you for home and in-vehicle defense. They have unlimited criminal and civil case coverage.
They are the ones who represented George Zimmerman against Trayvon Martin and are the only ones with an actual murder case under their belt. They have the best value and experience if you do the research.
If you are going to shoot, shoot to kill.
You really think anyone confronting a mob and having to shoot should call 911 so they go to jail for months while on trial, then antifa doxxes you with the public info to ruin or kill you, so on and so on?
I'm not fucking stupid. If it's a riot, the rules are out the window.
What about bear bangers? I have to think a blank round from a non lethal launcher would be legal. Unless it violates some firework or noise ordinance.
The problem is that while murder will be taken to a grand jury who will almost always side with moral customs trying to step in your shoes, discharging a weapon will be handled by a bureaucrat that won't do the same exercise and will stick to a logical rigid system.
It is nothing wrong with the concept of warning shots themselves. If you go to a grand jury for murder and you did fire warning shots before killing the perpetrator that will definitely be seen in a better light.
The fucked up part is if your warning shot works you're fucked because you don't go to a grand jury.