Criminal Justice and Crime
This is a Lemmy.World community for discussions of Criminal Justice and crime.
Rules:
-
This is a community about criminal justice. Posts should relate to criminal justice, crime, policing, courts and litigation, and other related topics. Posts about crime should be about a noteworthy crime, not "run of the mill" crimes.
-
Be civil. You do not need to support criminal justice reform to participate in this community and civil discussions are encouraged.
-
Posts should be news, discussions, or images related to criminal justice. Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.
-
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Utilizing such language in your username will also result in a ban.
view the rest of the comments
My takeaway from this is aim for the head instead of warning shots. Ridiculous ruling...
PS: Maybe to clarify, there are now cases ruling that if you manage to kill the cops that don't announce themselves, that is legal self defense. But if you fire a warning shot, they can legally kill you. So it is far better to kill the cops than to give them a chance to kill you, legally speaking... Absolute brain dead legal ruling...
Warning shots, regardless of the situation, have always been a no-no. If you have to pull and discharge a firearm it is ALWAYS intended to be a lethal shot.
There is precedent of self defense being lost because of warning shots if you had the time to shoot a shot YOU KNOW is going to miss, you had time to disarm the situation in another way, is the legal justification.
So yes, if you own a gun, and intend to use it in self defense, no warning shots, aim center of mass.
Btw, in Czechia and Slovakia, it is the opposite. If you have time, you are legally required to use a warning shot. To me this makes more sense since it is likely to defuse the situation without actually injuring/killing anyone. Although I admit it could escalate the situation if the warning shot causes bystanders/cops to get involved and misunderstand the situation. So I guess it is a matter of preference.
The thinking is that even considering pulling your firearm must mean that you are in a time-critical situation where it's the only recourse you have. The goal is to keep it from even entering the equation until the point where it's life or death. Not to mention any shot off-target had a chance to end up hitting someone or something you really shouldn't.
I can see the reasoning behind a warning shot. No reasonable person wants to take a life, and if a shot into the ground, air, or neighbors couch can prevent that, I get the appeal. Unfortunately by the time we're there, it's already well past the point where the other person is simply too much of a threat.
But why tho? Does a cop keep their gun holstered until absolutely the last second? No! They aim at you at the first sign of danger so that you think twice before you do dumb stuff. Why wouldn't that apply to civilians defending themselves or their property?
By the way, warning shot is also not the first thing you are supposed to do in CZ/SK. If time permits, you should pull the gun, give two verbal warnings then warning shot immediately followed by another verbal warning.
I don't think we should be using (American) cops as the standard for reasonable behaviour here
Point is they SHOULD keep it holstered until it's the only option available. There's a case to be made for training and accountability, but at least in the states that goes out the window. Your average cop is neither trained nor accountable,and certainly shouldn't have a gun. That's another argument though.
All of the warnings can be done before a gun gets involved. You can warn that you will defend yourself, that you have a firearm, etc. without brandishing it. And still, firing the gun and not hitting something important, in a high stress situation, regardless of level of training can't be done safely and reliably.
While I somewhat agree about the warning shot, I absolutely don't about the brandishing. Visual demonstration that you have a gun will always be many times more effective then just saying it. Requiring that you keep it holstered until the last moment is dumb. Not only are you loosing out on the deterrent but having to draw and load the gun under pressure is far more likely to lead to an accident. Or you carry the gun loaded which again increases the chance of an accident.
If you carry, you should be carrying with a round in the chamber (I assume this is what you mean by loaded). If you're not comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber, you should not be carrying a pistol.
Like, you read that in a horoscope?
Says every reputable CCW instructor. If you do not carry with one in the chamber, you either do not trust your equipment (in which case you should get better equipment) or do not trust yourself (in which case you should not be carrying).
By this logic, I should either drive without a seatbelt or not drive at all... What is this brain dead logic... 😖
You're basically taking the position that you should drive without a seatbelt. Either you always drive with your seatbelt (i.e. get a proper kydex holster, practice your draw, be familiar with your equipment and setup) or you shouldn't get in a car. You should never draw your gun simply to brandish - if you draw, you should be drawing with the intent to fire because your life is in imminent danger. Taking an extra few seconds in a literal life or death situation to rack your slide, when 1) you might not have the use of both hands, 2) your hands might slip due to adrenaline, or 3) you might fuck up the slide rack and induce a malfunction - i'm sure there are other situations too. These are all things you do NOT want to have happen if you are drawing your gun to save your life. And if you have the time to leisurely draw, rack, and brandish, a zealous prosecutor could easily argue that you weren't afraid for your life and/or you could have used that time to get further away from your attacker.
Again, brandishing is not an issue where I live.
If anything, I would prefer the attacker see me rack the pistol just for the psychological effect, hopefully avoiding having to fire.
More importantly, I live in a peaceful country. The chances I get hit by a car or suffer a heart attack are greater then that I will need to defend myself with a weapon. So if a paramedic needs to handle the gun when I am incapacitated, I would prefer there was not a round in the chamber rather than fearing the tiny chance I will mess up the rack in the tiny chance I will need the gun at all. (btw, I currently don't everyday carry at all. The neighbourhood I live and work in is so safe I don't see the point.)
Of course, if I had to go to Afganistan or Detroit, I would definitely want a round in the chamber. 😁
That falls under trusting your equipment. This train of reasoning is more along the lines of you never drive with your seatbelt because you don't trust it to save you, and in fact think it'll make it worse.
It's nice that the Czechs and Slovaks have such a naive view of violence. It means the culture is doing something more important right.
Okay, so, if someone fires a weapon in situations such as a no-knock raid, how many shots leading to lethality create a questionable defense?
That is: If I shoot once and hit, great! Twice? Three times? What if I double-tap? If I have the aim of some of these police officers, could I empty a full clip, reload, and empty another one?
Are their points involved? 10 points for a dismissal. 9 for a favorable jury. 8 for a good lawyer. 2 and your case is handled in Texas. 1 you shot at and missed a white guy.
We need more information!
Not a lawyer, non of this is legal advice.
As I understand it, you can mag dump as long as you manage to do it before the subject falls down, drops their weapon or otherwise clearly ceases to be a threat.
You as a civilian can't really shoot at a target you don't see, just in a general direction. This is endangerment of other potential people that may be in the area.
Cops shouldn't do it either but they are not punished in anyway for it.
As for how many point is Texas jury worth, and how many negative point does a Californian jury give you is outside the scope of my theoretical knowledge.