Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Homeowner apprehends burglar with fiream and then HE gets arrested

I happen to have read your previous posts. I disagree with your premise that a warning shot is identical to shooting someone. It lacks intention, and under the circumstances, it also lacks recklessness, so isn't comparable to actually shooting someone for the purpose of the laws you're referring to. It might be a good rule of thumb not to draw without having justification for immediately firing with deadly intent, but it's not traditionally a law that if you draw you must shoot to kill, and I'm not aware of any statute to that effect either.

That's an awesome breed of dog. Glad you didn't actually need to shoot one of them.

Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.

They can be and generally they are real people friendly but two times in seven days and the one in the duck pen chasing ducks and the one stalking the wife were over the top. I am glad I took the warning shots and glad they worked but I will not keep putting up with this. Lambing season is just around the corner and this is not a place where the ladies need to be afraid to walk outside.

It's been a long day and I'm easily amused right now.

NH needs to be carved out and sent to England or Australia, where they would fit right in.

An Outrage!!

Based only on the facts presented in the story, I don't understand the arrest. I also don't understand the warning shot... which leads to a serious request. I'd really like to hear from all the current/former LEOs here what the gentleman SHOULD have done, by the numbers.

The reason I ask is because I'm genuinely interested in the range of answers across diverse jurisdictions, given the great variation in state laws dealing with self defense and the use of deadly force. As we know, some states, such as my former home state of Calif., do everything in their power to make it nearly impossible for someone to defend themselves. Others, such as my adopted state of Texas, take a different view.

For example:

"SAN ANTONIO -- Police say a homeowner on the city's northwest side shot a man in the head Wednesday morning for trying to steal a potted plant from his yard.

The homeowner, in his 60s, grabbed his handgun around 8 a.m. and took several shots a man he claims was stealing a potted plant and other items from his yard at 708 Shadwell, said Sgt. Chris Benavides, a spokesman for the San Antonio Police Department.

Officers caught up to the suspect at the Cabana Apartments, where he lives. He told officers that he had just finished dropping his kids off at school when he was shot in the head.

Benavides said the suspect allegedly stopped at the Shadwell Drive home on his way back from the school.

"When the homeowner saw that someone was trying to steal his plant he used his firearm, shot several times at the suspect," Benavides said. "The suspect was struck one time in the head area. It's my understanding that he was grazed by the bullet."

The suspect, in his 40s, was taken to an area hospital. Police said he will be charged with theft and possibly burglary.

Benavides said the homeowner is being questioned but will not likely be charged."

How would this case likely be treated in YOUR jurisdiction?

OOPS! Changed it.

I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) is MUCH more persuasive, and conducive to immediate compliance, than my voice. Round two would be lethal force.
Mark

A warning shot, no matter how ill-advised it may be, isn't lethal force.

Yep.

OH YEAH!?!?

He committed indiscriminate Oligochaeta-cide.

I gotta agree. Unless some new info comes to light, this guy being prosecuted would be total bullshiit.

Thanks for this.

Friggin' neighbors have been taking the oranges off of our tree out front for years....

No more...

Ya got any actual experience/data to back that up?

I'd guess just as often a warning shot precipitates flight or fight when the perp percieves the employment of deadly force has ALREADY begun.

..and IIRC Ayoob cites cases where warning shots caused actual injury.

Birdwatcher

You'd find yourself on the stand defining 'safe direction'..

I'm personally aware of a little libby twerp female lawyer who would not only grill you on that, but demonstrate - by her questioning - that there IS no 'safe direction'...

Nonsense. It's up to the prosecution to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant didn't fire in a safe direction. Absent such proof, the jury will be instructed to conclude that the direction was safe. The defendant isn't required to say word one about a safe direction.

Anybody that thinks that this guy deserves charged with the info given does not belong on the 'fire. We are gun owners against liberals. The police should have thanked him, and the officer(s) that charged him should pay his legal fees along with any lost wages+.

Au Contrere, my friend.. Our gun range was shut down three years ago due to the plaintiff's argument that ANY shot, fired in ANY direction, is inherently unsafe.. Our NRA certified attorney did his best, but the local court, and the following appeal, got us bupkis.. The State Supreme Court refused to hear any further appeal - and the range is now shut down - permanently.. All due to the little twerp female litigator who let the witnesses around by the nose to an inescapable conclusion that there IS no 'safe' direction..

I was IN that courtroom for this case..

While in some distorted legal or officer-speak, that might be construed as true, but in the test of common sense, it's a complete distortion of both reality & common sense.

And yes, I respect both your experience & comments based on that experience.

MM