Dayton woman fires ‘warning shot’ at man wearing clown mask

[eldirector]

Would you face prosecution in Indiana if you dammage someone else's property with one of your "warning shots" during a self defense situation?

The way the law is written make it sounds like you can't ve prosecuted if you shoot at your neighbor's car to scare off some would be attacker.
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]


[/FONT]

If ruled actual self defense, then you won't be prosecuted.

Though, a "warning shot" is more likely to be reckless endangerment than self defense, IMHO. Garages are not backstops.

Nothing will protect you from a civil suit.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Would you face prosecution in Indiana if you dammage someone else's property with one of your "warning shots" during a self defense situation?

The way the law is written make it sounds like you can't ve prosecuted if you shoot at your neighbor's car to scare off some would be attacker.
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]


[/FONT]

Not sure, maybe you should ask T.Lex??

 

[HoughMade]

Would you face prosecution in Indiana if you dammage someone else's property with one of your "warning shots" during a self defense situation?

The way the law is written make it sounds like you can't ve prosecuted if you shoot at your neighbor's car to scare off some would be attacker.

While shooting the attacker may be reasonable, shooting something else, intentionally, may not be.

If you aim at the attacker and miss, that's one thing. If you intentionally shoot someone else's stuff, sure we can make an argument, but it's not clear-cut.

 

[T.Lex]

Let me resolve the question for you. Warning shots are never appropriate under any circumstances.

Welcome to INGO. You must be new here.

Not sure, maybe you should ask T.Lex??

Shhhh.... let's see how this plays out.

But, I can't help but observe that there must be something in Ohio that cultivates warning shots....

 

[MarkC]

FYI, this is Dayton, Ohio, not Tippecanoe County's Dayton.

Having worked up that way, (a long time ago,) that's the first thing I thought: "Oh, this is up Kirk's way... "

 

[foszoe]

While shooting the attacker may be reasonable, shooting something else, intentionally, may not be.

If you aim at the attacker and miss, that's one thing. If you intentionally shoot someone else's stuff, sure we can make an argument, but it's not clear-cut.

While not a believer in the "warning shot", I have just made the conscious mental note that if I EVER do fire a warning shot, it will NOT be called a warning shot in any statement.

 

[mikebol]

The issue arises when you call it a "warning shot", were you really in fear for your life? A lawyer could easily argue that you were not or you would have attempted to neutralize the threat.

foszoe is exactly correct. Regardless of your intent, never refer to it as a "warning shot".

 

[Thor]

Maybe it's being driven by old Army guard duty protocol: Halt! Halt or I will shoot! (bang into the air) Halt or I will shoot you! (bang).

I always figured I would switch the order of those and fire the second round into the air...could still yell directions in the same order.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think we will ever resolve the question of whether or not "warning shots" are appropriate under some circumstances. It seemed to work for this lady, except she now has bullet holes in her garage.

Dayton woman fires ?warning shot? at man wearing clown mask | WDTN

No, that question is utterly and completely resolved. Warning shots are never appropriate. Either the use of deadly force is justified, or it is not. If it is not justified, then the "warning shot" is unlawful. If it IS justified, and you actually need to pull the trigger, the "warning shot" merely wastes ammunition and violates one or more of the four rules.

I'm wondering why the woman went outside of her house in the first place? Knowing that there are multiple people on multiple sides of your house, all of whom have more firepower than you (long guns vs. a revolver), going outside to confront one of them wouldn't be the first thing I would think of.

 

[AngryRooster]

No, that question is utterly and completely resolved. Warning shots are never appropriate. Either the use of deadly force is justified, or it is not. If it is not justified, then the "warning shot" is unlawful. If it IS justified, and you actually need to pull the trigger, the "warning shot" merely wastes ammunition and violates one or more of the four rules.

I'm wondering why the woman went outside of her house in the first place? Knowing that there are multiple people on multiple sides of your house, all of whom have more firepower than you (long guns vs. a revolver), going outside to confront one of them wouldn't be the first thing I would think of.[/QUOTE]


TV training. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the gun either belonged to her husband or someone else in the house, or if she bought it herself she didn't bother to learn anything about it or take a simple class. Bought the gun, now we're protected, I know how to work it, I've seen how it goes on TV.


Sadly, these types of gun owners outnumber those that actually practice & train.

 

[T.Lex]

No, that question is utterly and completely resolved. Warning shots are never appropriate. Either the use of deadly force is justified, or it is not. If it is not justified, then the "warning shot" is unlawful. If it IS justified, and you actually need to pull the trigger, the "warning shot" merely wastes ammunition and violates one or more of the four rules.

Dude.

You totally should've been here in 2011.

 

[myhightechsec]

No, that question is utterly and completely resolved. Warning shots are never appropriate. Either the use of deadly force is justified, or it is not. If it is not justified, then the "warning shot" is unlawful. If it IS justified, and you actually need to pull the trigger, the "warning shot" merely wastes ammunition and violates one or more of the four rules.

I'm wondering why the woman went outside of her house in the first place? Knowing that there are multiple people on multiple sides of your house, all of whom have more firepower than you (long guns vs. a revolver), going outside to confront one of them wouldn't be the first thing I would think of.

You just might find many good people who disagree with you. And that... by definition... means unresolved. You'll certainly rarely find one of your "unlawful" warning shots prosecuted unless there are other circumstances involved such as carelessness and injury to another.

 

[Hookeye]

Maybe firing into the garage was a "safe direction".
Wonder if there indeed was a bullet trap someplace in their (proper, not the Buick).
Drive up to my bud's...........his garage door open, yup...........22lr bullet trap in the corner - stored.
Has vehicles crammed in there.
Not obvious, to non shooters..........but I thought it a bit iffy, having shooting stuff visible to others.

 

[chipbennett]

You just might find many good people who disagree with you. And that... by definition... means unresolved. You'll certainly rarely find one of your "unlawful" warning shots prosecuted unless there are other circumstances involved such as carelessness and injury to another.

That other people hold the wrong opinion does not mean that the question itself remains unresolved. Warning shots, by definition, are always wrong (in one way or another). Warning shots will either a) violate one or more of the Four Rules, b) violate criminal law, c) place one in civil jeopardy, or d) prove to be a tactical error.

As for people being arrested for firing warning shots allegedly being rare: that's debatable. It is a stupid, unnecessary risk to take.

 

[myhightechsec]

That other people hold the wrong opinion does not mean that the question itself remains unresolved. Warning shots, by definition, are always wrong (in one way or another). Warning shots will either a) violate one or more of the Four Rules, b) violate criminal law, c) place one in civil jeopardy, or d) prove to be a tactical error.

As for people being arrested for firing warning shots allegedly being rare: that's debatable. It is a stupid, unnecessary risk to take.

You do know that virtually every one of the cites listed at your google deal with the SAME case over and over again?

And simply declaring other people's opinion as "wrong" does not make a winning argument either.

The Four Rules are not and never have been the Gospel. And none of them apply to this particular situation either.

Shooting people generally violates criminal law but there are exceptions made for doing so when it is considered a reasonable act.

Shooting people generally puts one in civil jeopardy but there are exceptions made for doing so when it is considered a reasonable act.

Lots of actions prove after the fact to be a tactical error. Armchair quarterbacking is such a strenuous sport.

I am not generally in favor of warning shots. If I need to shoot I am generally opposed to any warning at all. Just shoot. But if someone chooses to do what they choose to do, and it WORKS for them, then I will give them the point.

 

[Geoman]

I bet that garage was a good garage and was turning its life around.

 

[chipbennett]

You do know that virtually every one of the cites listed at your google deal with the SAME case over and over again?

Demonstrably untrue.

And simply declaring other people's opinion as "wrong" does not make a winning argument either.

And yet, I didn't merely make such a declaration. Pretending I did so doesn't make it true.

The Four Rules are not and never have been the Gospel. And none of them apply to this particular situation either.

How do the Four Rules not apply to this situation? The Four Rules apply to *every* situation in which a firearm is handled, and especially when a firearm is discharged - specifically, the fourth rule. You are always responsible for the final location of the lead you send downrange.

Shooting people generally violates criminal law but there are exceptions made for doing so when it is considered a reasonable act.

The use of deadly force in self defense, including shooting an assailant, is explicitly allowed under relevant statutes. It is not an inherently criminal act. Justifiable homicide is called justifiable because it is justified statutorily.

Shooting people generally puts one in civil jeopardy but there are exceptions made for doing so when it is considered a reasonable act.

See above. It depends on the state. In many states, the statutes explicitly protect the victim from both criminal and civil jeopardy when using deadly force in self-defense.

Lots of actions prove after the fact to be a tactical error. Armchair quarterbacking is such a strenuous sport.

Declaring an inherently foolish action as such is not armchair quarterbacking.

I am not generally in favor of warning shots. If I need to shoot I am generally opposed to any warning at all. Just shoot. But if someone chooses to do what they choose to do, and it WORKS for them, then I will give them the point.

Better to be lucky than good, I guess?