Warning Shots, and Shoot to Wound...

[espy59lc]

I was asked "Why not fire a warning shot, or shoot to wound" WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot!!!!

Some people I swear...

 

[txinvestigator]

Ok.

 

[espy59lc]

Ok.

I know you know your stuff, have you ever tried talking sense into someone about why neither is a good option? He even mentioned to rack the gun. I told him all my guns have one in the chamber already!

 

[dreyes89]

Isn't a warning shot reckless conduct and you can be charged? As far as wounding, I'd rather have ny side of the story only, not two.

 

[Chupacabra Hunter]

shoot to stop the threat..... period,

 

[txinvestigator]

I know you know your stuff, have you ever tried talking sense into someone about why neither is a good option? He even mentioned to rack the gun. I told him all my guns have one in the chamber already!

Yeah, depends on who is asking. Some liberal with an agenda I do not even bother. In CHL class with a student trying to learn, absolutely.

Since we have no context for the OP, all I can think of is "OK".

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

If they're worth shooting, then they're worth putting down for good.
Ammo is too expensive to waste on warning shots
Sent while trying to concentrate on 6 things at once.

 

[Texanjoker]

shoot to stop the threat..... period,

that is what I do

 

[Bithabus]

Warning shots and shooting to wound are good ways to end up in prison

 

[swcc22]

Warning shots and shooting to wound are good ways to end up in prison

Or to be sued

The only easy day was yesterday.

 

[Glockster69]

Shoot to STOP, or shoot to kill? There's a significant difference and I'm not clear on some of the replies intent.

I'm not sure if I had shot someone and their on the ground doing no more than crawling to advance towards me (with nothing more than a knife for example) I would fire again. Given the possible legal implications I certainly understand no one responding to this, more just thinking out loud I suppose.

 

[TX69]

My warning shot went right into the BG followed by the rest of the hi cap mag.

 

[Glockster69]

My warning shot went right into the BG followed by the rest of the hi cap mag.

Are you current or ex-military? Been on the line?

 

[Renegade]

You have to realize a lot of folks grasp of how things are done comes from TV. I bet he thinks you can start a car by sparking two wires under the dash, or pick a lock/cuffs with a toothpick or ....

 

[Texanjoker]

Shoot to STOP, or shoot to kill? There's a significant difference and I'm not clear on some of the replies intent.

I'm not sure if I had shot someone and their on the ground doing no more than crawling to advance towards me (with nothing more than a knife for example) I would fire again. Given the possible legal implications I certainly understand no one responding to this, more just thinking out loud I suppose.

if the bad guy is now down, and not an immediate threat you should to stop. If the bad guy is down, and still a threat you need to do what is necessary to protect yourself. You also have to live with what you do.

RE another post.. you will be sued. Expect it.

 

[M. Sage]

You have to realize a lot of folks grasp of how things are done comes from TV. I bet he thinks you can start a car by sparking two wires under the dash, or pick a lock/cuffs with a toothpick or ....

I always face palm when I see that crap. This ain't 1970, geez.

 

[TX69]

Are you current or ex-military? Been on the line?

Why?

 

[RetArmySgt]

...

RE another post.. you will be sued. Expect it.

Did Texas not recently pass a law that if your use of deadly force was justified you are safe from civil suit?

ETA: here is what i was thinking about:
CPRC §83.001 After 2007 wrote:
CPRC §83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

 

[Glockster69]

Why not answer?

 

[Blind Sniper]

Shoot to STOP, or shoot to kill? There's a significant difference and I'm not clear on some of the replies intent.

I'm not sure if I had shot someone and their on the ground doing no more than crawling to advance towards me (with nothing more than a knife for example) I would fire again. Given the possible legal implications I certainly understand no one responding to this, more just thinking out loud I suppose.

He still has a weapon, he is still trying to advance, ergo he is still a threat. Not that hard to comprehend.