TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:

ldj1002 wrote:Well I guess he should have shot them instead of running them away???

are you suggesting that firing into the air is a good idea?
keeping in mind that what goes up, must come down. and can come down onto an innocent person several backyards away.

No. I am not suggesting firing into the air is good. However Killing someone isn't good if you can keep from it and he did. I also saw that mythbusters episode. Chances of winning the lottery are better that his bullet would hit someone and even if it did it wouldn't kill. Now that said , did the thugs get caught??? If not his action probably just give them a sense of security and they will do it again maybe killing someone where if he had killed one of them it might put a stop to their actions. If he had killed one he likely would be trying to prove if his life was in danger. If it was found he was unarmed he would still be in a world of trouble.

ldj1002 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

ldj1002 wrote:Well I guess he should have shot them instead of running them away???

are you suggesting that firing into the air is a good idea?
keeping in mind that what goes up, must come down. and can come down onto an innocent person several backyards away.

No. I am not suggesting firing into the air is good. However Killing someone isn't good if you can keep from it and he did. I also saw that mythbusters episode. Chances of winning the lottery are better that his bullet would hit someone and even if it did it wouldn't kill. Now that said , did the thugs get caught??? If not his action probably just give them a sense of security and they will do it again maybe killing someone where if he had killed one of them it might put a stop to their actions. If he had killed one he likely would be trying to prove if his life was in danger. If it was found he was unarmed he would still be in a world of trouble.

When I lived in "Southern California" there were always a few people who were hit by stray bullets on July 4.
Of course, back then, as long as someone was actually aiming at you, you were perfectly safe. Its when they were aiming for the people next to you that you had a problem.

I have very mixed feelings about this. The upside was that he didn't shoot any of the "thugs". Shooting a thug may have resulted in much larger and more substantial legal and civil issues, never mind the fact that he avoided potentially taking someone's life. I understand the concept of "legally justified" - but don't think that just because it's legal, we should exercise that final means.

Personally, I think he used the minimum amount of force necessary to get the desired behavior and what he did was right... Not necessarily legal, but right, and I don't think that I'd convict him of doing it.

The downside of firing a warnings shot is that he just took away his justification for self defense. As pointed out by several online attorneys:

If a person deems that they can fire a warning shot rather than firing with the intent to stop an aggressor, then one can reasonably conclude that the actor did not feel their life was in sufficient, immediate danger as to require the use of deadly force.

Again, I think what he did was much more desirable than shooting people. Apparently the PD didn't agree and likely the DA won't agree either.

I understand why many people on this forum indicate that if they're going to display it, that they're going to use it... The current laws on the books seem to encourage that as the only "legal" play. I think there are a good number of cases were things could de-escalate somewhere between display and actually shooting someone.

I wondered if a falling bullet would actually kill, this is what I found via mythbusters:

They found that a bullet fired straight up (an almost impossible achievement for a human), will tumble on its return trip and falls at a slower rate due to terminal velocity. In addition, they found that a bullet in this circumstance is therefore less lethal on impact. However, they also discovered that a bullet fired at a non-vertical angle will be able to maintain its speed enough to be very destructive on impact. In determining if the myth was ‘Busted’, ‘Plausible’ or ‘Confirmed’, they proposed that this myth would receive all three ratings at the same time.

cb1000rider wrote:I understand why many people on this forum indicate that if they're going to display it, that they're going to use it... The current laws on the books seem to encourage that as the only "legal" play. I think there are a good number of cases were things could de-escalate somewhere between display and actually shooting someone.

Actually, current laws do not

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.

So, just the display of a weapon does not constitute the use of deadly force, even if perceived that the actor will use it if necessary.

thanks for the clarification, Keith.

What would have happened if he fired the warning shot into his own car then

the round would have been contained and still scare the thugs off

Devaluation of your car may be a small price to pay

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

ldj1002 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

ldj1002 wrote:Well I guess he should have shot them instead of running them away???

are you suggesting that firing into the air is a good idea?
keeping in mind that what goes up, must come down. and can come down onto an innocent person several backyards away.

No. I am not suggesting firing into the air is good. However Killing someone isn't good if you can keep from it and he did. I also saw that mythbusters episode. Chances of winning the lottery are better that his bullet would hit someone and even if it did it wouldn't kill. Now that said , did the thugs get caught??? If not his action probably just give them a sense of security and they will do it again maybe killing someone where if he had killed one of them it might put a stop to their actions. If he had killed one he likely would be trying to prove if his life was in danger. If it was found he was unarmed he would still be in a world of trouble.

When I lived in "Southern California" there were always a few people who were hit by stray bullets on July 4.
Of course, back then, as long as someone was actually aiming at you, you were perfectly safe. Its when they were aiming for the people next to you that you had a problem.

almost every New Years and July 4 here in San Antonio....maybe it's a Hispanic thing?

Doing nothing or firing warning shots are not the only two options. Any argument suggesting so is invalid.

tommyg wrote:What would have happened if he fired the warning shot into his own car then
the round would have been contained and still scare the thugs off

Or the ground (not concrete). Is that any better?
Is it any better than shooting a person with a urban backdrop? Will the round stay in the thug?

My understanding (from my CHL instructor, who apparently has shot a few cars) is that shooting into cars can produce some interesting results depending on where you hit them...

Here's my semi-directly-applied question:
Facing a dog that attacks in public.. And by attack, I mean approaches aggressively at a high rate of speed - on a public street. I recognize if I feel that I'm about to be harmed, I can defend myself.
If I'm on foot, I can't outrun it. I'd probably move toward it and yell, but if that wasn't discouraging enough, I *might* fire a warning shot. I take it that this is a Very Bad Idea and much worse than actually shooting the dog in terms of criminal liability.

Note, this is primarily in a mostly rural setting. Not a dense residential situation. We have lots of loose dogs. Most don't mean business, but we've been bitten twice in the last 5 years.


And I really don't want to shoot dogs. Any dog.

I've been trained to fire two warning shots center mass. If those are ineffective, then follow up with a head shot.

The OP does not mention if this rocket scientist has a CHL or was carrying under MPA. His actions indicate ignorance of the law so I am perceiving it was under MPA. If so, this illustrates why it is generally better to have a CHL. At least in obtaining the license, a person is exposed to the basics of the state laws governing the use of force and deadly force. Without that information on board, most people have nothing in their noggins but the countless movies they have seen or the erroneous assumptions of family and friends.

TexasGal wrote:The OP does not mention if this rocket scientist has a CHL or was carrying under MPA. His actions indicate ignorance of the law so I am perceiving it was under MPA.

"He’s 25 and has a gun in his vehicle. No problem." Based on this quote from the OP I assume also that he was carrying under MPA. I must say though, I don't remember "shooting in the air" specifically being covered in my CHL class.
What goes up must come down is something I learned at a very young age when I would toss toys in the air and they would land on my head. I don't think one needs to go through a CHL class to understand this basic law of Physics.

In this case, the words used by the young man are what hung him more than his actions. If he had said he shot at one of them and missed he would probably be fine. If he had said I shot one over their head he still might be fine. But "I shot a warning shot in the air" was just a stupid thing to say.