so who taught him the rules to carry?

[tim-adams]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/west-virginia-man-arrested-firing-warning-shot-says-police-got-wrong-man

OMG he not only did a Negligent discharge but he put it in the air...

*face palm*

I was taught to never pull the firearm until the justification to fire existed, there was not pointing, no ND, no threatening.

when you feel your life is in danger you draw and fire, I am not a LEO, I am not authorized to actually legally point a firearm at a person ( I think its Assault with a Deadly weapon)
this guy was way off the reservation..

now i will say that police should also have gotten the thugs who threatened him, but he messed that up with a ND.
all he should have done was shine his flashlight into their eyes and told them the police are on the way.
if they got within threat range with a knife or bat, defend you life.

*sigh*

[cstone]

Warning shots are a bad idea.

I would guess that a good attorney gets the charge down to unlawful discharge within city limits, which would be a misdemeanor just about anywhere.

Only him and his fiancée as witnesses, it makes anything on either side difficult to prove.

Glad neither he nor his fiancée were harmed.

[Bailey Guns]

“In some of the concealed weapons classes and firearm prevention classes I have taken, they have said, you know, it's good to fire a warning shot,” Harris said.

He needs to find better classes.

On the one hand I sympathize with the guy. On the other hand he did endanger other people by being stupid.

I wouldn't say "never pull the firearm until the justification to fire existed, there was not pointing, no ND, no threatening" is the right course of action. "Never" is a strong word and rules out using a firearm in many situations where you may not be justified or prepared to fire immediately, but prudence dictates having a firearm ready. A "bump in the night" at home is one case where you may want to have a firearm at the ready and not be ready to fire. Lethal force scenarios are dynamic and can change quickly. I also wouldn't have a problem threatening someone with a gun if the circumstances permitted. Such as, the "bump in the night" turns out to be someone attempting to make entry into my home. Say they're trying to break a door or window in order to enter. I don't see any problem at all with pointing the gun at them and even threatening to shoot them if they are successful in their attempt at gaining entry. As a matter of fact I'd say that's likely a smart thing to do. I'd much rather threaten someone with my gun than actually have to shoot them.

There are all sorts of situations I can imagine where pointing my gun at someone and threatening to shoot them, without actually shooting them, would be appropriate. Warning shots? NEVER!

[tim-adams]

clarify: I was speaking in a public CCW environment.
at home if I hear a bump I will be racking the AR, and seeing if I hear another noise of someone fleeing immediately..

having justification to shoot, and pulling the firearm and seeking cover is never a bad option, but the key is you are ready to fire, and as soon as you have a proper sight picture and background, your in action.

from my wife(the attorney) : pointing a weapon (loaded or unloading) at a person in CO is Assault with a deadly weapon. never point a weapon until its go time.
drawing the weapon and not pointing it, I am less clear on, could be considered brandishing a firearm, could be nothing.

key is, if you have solid justification before you weapon leaves leather, you should be ok in the end.

[tim-adams]

“In some of the concealed weapons classes and firearm prevention classes I have taken, they have said, you know, it's good to fire a warning shot,” Harris said.

He needs to find better classes.

I agree, I have had pistol classes from three people, all of them said do not discharge your piston unless you are in fear of life.
at that point you are NOT firing warning shoots..

[tim-adams]

Warning shots are a bad idea.

I would guess that a good attorney gets the charge down to unlawful discharge within city limits, which would be a misdemeanor just about anywhere.

Only him and his fiancée as witnesses, it makes anything on either side difficult to prove.

Glad neither he nor his fiancée were harmed.

+1

[Irving]

from my wife(the attorney) : pointing a weapon (loaded or unloading) at a person in CO is Assault with a deadly weapon. never point a weapon until its go time.
drawing the weapon and not pointing it, I am less clear on, could be considered brandishing a firearm, could be nothing.



I believe it is menacing with a deadly weapon, not assault. However, I'm not an attorney.

[tim-adams]

I believe it is menacing with a deadly weapon, not assault. However, I'm not an attorney.

I think Menacing is just pulling it, pointing it is AWDW (fear for thier life)..

[davsel]

I've pulled a gun on two occasions - problem solved - never pulled the trigger.

[Bailey Guns]

Pointing a gun at someone is not assault (unless the person is a peace officer/firefighter or other emergency responder and the intent is to cause serious bodily injury). Assault 1, 2 or 3 all require (for the most part) some degree of bodily injury. Depending on the circumstances it's either Menacing, like Irving stated, Disorderly Conduct or Prohibited Use of a Weapon. And there's no such thing as "brandishing" under Colorado state law. Depending on the circumstances even drawing your gun could be considered menacing as well.

I'm not trying to pick nits here... But there's enough confusion and misinformation floating around, especially on the internet, re: carrying a gun and defensive use of guns that it's important for people who carry for protection to understand what the law really says.

And keep in mind a person might be able to discreetly draw their weapon and have it at the ready (or more ready) without actually displaying it or pointing it at someone.

[mcantar18c]

I'd much rather threaten someone with my gun than actually have to shoot them.

Read: "I'd much rather let a potentially violent, deranged person with obvious disregard for the law, who now knows where I live, know there are firearms and maybe other cool things he can get a lot of money for on the street in the house and then send him on his merry way with a potential grudge against me."

That could be an invitation for future problems for you, and is likely a guarantee of future problems for somebody else down the road.

[Colorado Osprey]

I think Menacing is just pulling it, pointing it is AWDW (fear for thier life)..

8-9-106. Disorderly conduct

(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

(3) An offense under(1)(f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.

18-3-206. Menacing

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:

(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or

(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.


Don't forget that a lot of municipalities have brandishing ordinances as well that under state law would fall into disorderly conduct .

[Singlestack]

Yeah - perhaps could be, but I believe much more likely not to be the case. Circumstances mean everything, and shooting under the wrong circumstances can get you in jail, lose everything you own, and ruin your life. You might want to consult with an attorney on the aftermath of a shooting. Pretty darn sobering.

[Rucker61]

Joe Biden said to fire warning shots. That right there is sufficient information. If Joe says to do it (whatever "it" is), it's the wrong course of action.

[Ronin13]

Read: "I'd much rather let a potentially violent, deranged person with obvious disregard for the law, who now knows where I live, know there are firearms and maybe other cool things he can get a lot of money for on the street in the house and then send him on his merry way with a potential grudge against me."

That could be an invitation for future problems for you, and is likely a guarantee of future problems for somebody else down the road.
Woah, slow down there, hoss. How did it go from pointing your gun at them to them now knowing exactly where you live? That's a bit excessive.

Thanks to Bailey for clarifying... I was just going to say tim-adams, your wife must not be a criminal attorney, as pointing a gun at someone is menacing, not assault. Either way, when CCWing I use the Katana rule- my sword (gun) doesn't leave the scabbard (holster) unless it's going to be used.

[MarkCO]

Word choices are important, both in our discussion, and in what you say. "Threatening" to shoot someone or even the "Don't make me kill you" are words which, given the right set of circumstances, can get you in trouble.

Leave me alone, get away from me, please let me go are all "better" phrases to use if your actions and words are to be scrutinized by a Jury. Fact is, in any encounter that is hostile or aggressive in any manner, your actions and words are all you can control. Diffusing the situation, if possible with words that could not be consider badgering, escalating, etc. is the way to train yourself to act.

WRT the OP, yes, the words he used and the choice he made might not have been the best, but he is alive and his fiancee is as well. Had he not been armed, probably different outcome. Maybe he has learned a lesson and won't be walking home at night again in the same manner. Maybe he has learned his lesson and will get some better training on the proper use of lethal force. Maybe he will self-analyze his actions and what he (or his fiancee) did, or did not do to be the focus of the group who targeted him. Lessons learned without loss of life or bodily harm are, in general beneficial lessons.

[tim-adams]

good stuff here, cause someone said it right " this varies by state, and sometimes by city or county"

know the law in your area so you understand your options..
this guy did not know the law..


I do agree that he is likely to be given a smack on the hand and told not to do that. (likely lose his CCW for a while)

[mcantar18c]

Woah, slow down there, hoss. How did it go from pointing your gun at them to them now knowing exactly where you live? That's a bit excessive.

Did you read BG's post that I was responding to? He's specifically referring to a "bump in the night" incident and encountering someone attempting to enter his home.

[Irving]

If I'm walking with my wife, and we get surrounded by say, 5 guys, who say they are going to do something, there is pretty much no way I'm going to be able to prevent them from doing whatever they want. In that situation, I have to imagine that I'd enter a state of duress pretty quickly. At what point is a verbal threat from someone enough to engage? If some random dude says something, and only says something, that isn't enough reason to engage in my opinion. If it's 5 dudes, that's an entirely different story. Thoughts?

[davsel]

Either way, when CCWing I use the Katana rule- my sword (gun) doesn't leave the scabbard (holster) unless it's going to be used.

I am certain you are aware of multiple reasons why you may want to have a gun in your hand, at the ready, and may not pull the trigger.
Cops do this all the time. It is not a matter of threatening, it is a matter of readiness.
Hesitation, or waiting until you've determined you are going to shoot before drawing, may get you killed.

If looking down the barrel does not change a thug's mind, it's time to shoot. They usually understand the message and run.

[MarkCO]

If I'm walking with my wife, and we get surrounded by say, 5 guys, who say they are going to do something, there is pretty much no way I'm going to be able to prevent them from doing whatever they want. In that situation, I have to imagine that I'd enter a state of duress pretty quickly. At what point is a verbal threat from someone enough to engage? If some random dude says something, and only says something, that isn't enough reason to engage in my opinion. If it's 5 dudes, that's an entirely different story. Thoughts?

Engagement for me, is the use of verbal Judo. I would be trying to create distance or at least cut down angles of exposure. The use of lethal force requires you to be in fear for your life or of grave bodily harm. In my usage, the "you" applies to my family first and me second, other innocent life third.

There is no textbook answer, but worth consideration, even if not spelled out in detail on a forum. :)

[TFOGGER]

Warning shots are to be fired center of mass, until the threat has been neutralized. Use of a weapon to deter someone from causing you harm, after they have expressed that intent, does not necessarily mean discharging the weapon. Like Bailey said, use of force is a rapidly changing dynamic situation. Personally, my weapon never leaves the holster unless I am prepared to use it to defend myself, but unlike the sword of a samurai, there is no obligation to draw blood before I reholster my weapon, if the threat is ended and the situation de-escalated.

[Dave_L]

If I'm walking with my wife, and we get surrounded by say, 5 guys, who say they are going to do something, there is pretty much no way I'm going to be able to prevent them from doing whatever they want. In that situation, I have to imagine that I'd enter a state of duress pretty quickly. At what point is a verbal threat from someone enough to engage? If some random dude says something, and only says something, that isn't enough reason to engage in my opinion. If it's 5 dudes, that's an entirely different story. Thoughts?

In my CCW class, it was presented that it's all about the situation. You and your wife, surrounded by 5 guys creates a situation where fear of your and your wife's life is reasonable. Now, if you and 5 buddies walk by some girl getting attacked, it's not reasonable to think you need to use your gun to overpower 1 guy when there's 5 of you. My understanding is if you're out-numbered, you're generally going to be ok to pull the firearm if it becomes necessary. At which point is "necessary" is up to your own discretion.

[Ronin13]

I am certain you are aware of multiple reasons why you may want to have a gun in your hand, at the ready, and may not pull the trigger.
Cops do this all the time. It is not a matter of threatening, it is a matter of readiness.
Hesitation, or waiting until you've determined you are going to shoot before drawing, may get you killed.

If looking down the barrel does not change a thug's mind, it's time to shoot. They usually understand the message and run.
Good point, but in my context use can mean not firing the gun... I should have clarified. If I draw, there is the intent to pull the trigger, however, as the situation unfolds, I may deem it to be unnecessary to fire. At the ready is still considered a use. But again, the point remains, warning shots are more dangerous than engaging a target- for everyone around as well as your own freedom.

[Irving]

I would give a warning shot to a bear in the woods. Depending on the situation.

[TFOGGER]

I would give a warning shot to a bear in the woods. Depending on the situation.

I have gone this to motivate a bear to get out of our campsite(1 round, into the ground), more to make noise than anything else, as yelling did nothing. Urban predators do not get the courtesy of a warning beyond me asking/telling them to back off/leave me alone.

[tim-adams]

Warning shots are to be fired center of mass, until the threat has been neutralized. Use of a weapon to deter someone from causing you harm, after they have expressed that intent, does not necessarily mean discharging the weapon. Like Bailey said, use of force is a rapidly changing dynamic situation. Personally, my weapon never leaves the holster unless I am prepared to use it to defend myself, but unlike the sword of a samurai, there is no obligation to draw blood before I reholster my weapon, if the threat is ended and the situation de-escalated.
+1
well said..
most courts would agree a group of 5 people some of which with weapons (baseball bat is a weapon) after a suitable about of movement, yelling, and attempted avoidance (varies check stand your ground law) you are allowed if in fear for life and limb to neutralize the threat. this could mean drawing your firearm and not pointing it, or if you draw and they escalate, do what is required.
a very tough situation, that changes quickly, and its very easy to come up with all sorts of plans after a month sitting at your desk with perfect information, in a dark location with less than perfect information you make judgments based on what you know.

[Irving]

The presence of weapons changes everything and makes it a no brainer.

[Bailey Guns]

Read: "I'd much rather let a potentially violent, deranged person with obvious disregard for the law, who now knows where I live, know there are firearms and maybe other cool things he can get a lot of money for on the street in the house and then send him on his merry way with a potential grudge against me."

That could be an invitation for future problems for you, and is likely a guarantee of future problems for somebody else down the road.

Well, if that's the way you read what I was saying you have a comprehension problem. Or you're a fool. Or you're looking to go to jail. Maybe you watch too many movies. And frankly, I don't care what that person does "down the road" as long as he leaves me alone. I spent 15 years putting away people who could "potentially" have a grudge against me. Should I have killed them all, too?

I have no problem now, and I never have had a problem, pointing my gun at people and threatening to shoot them, or pulling the trigger, if the circumstances warranted that. Threatening to shoot and threatening to kill are two different things. Just because someone is ATTEMPTING to make an unlawful entry into my home doesn't mean they'll be successful and doesn't mean they're some violent, deranged criminal. It also doesn't mean I'm justified in shooting them at that point. Sometimes they're just drunk and stupid...we've seen that story in the news a few times in the past few years. Sometimes they're disoriented for other reasons. And I will stand by my statement that I'd rather not shoot if it's not necessary. Even under the best of circumstances that opens a can of worms I'd rather keep shut.

If you wanted to play your imaginative scenario out further what if you did shoot the guy? Maybe now you've pissed off his gang buddies and they all come back after you since they now know where you live. You used the word "potential" a couple of times in your response. Potentially, a million things could happen whether the trigger is pulled or not.

If you want to always pull the trigger before you have to, knock yourself out. I, on the other hand, know better than to assume that's always the best course of action.

[osok-308]

from my wife(the attorney) : pointing a weapon (loaded or unloading) at a person in CO is Assault with a deadly weapon. never point a weapon until its go time.
drawing the weapon and not pointing it, I am less clear on, could be considered brandishing a firearm, could be nothing.

If I'm not mistaken, pointing a firearm at someone is NOT assault with a deadly weapon (because no such law exists in Colorado, if you assault someone with a deadly weapon in Colorado, it ranges from first to third degree assault depending upon the injury sustained). I would probably fall under the felony menacing statute. As far as drawing a firearm and not pointing it, it could also fall in the felony menacing category. There is no brandishing law on the books in Colorado. The only time that pointing a firearm at someone is considered assault is if it is pointed at a peace officer in the state of Colorado.


I think Menacing is just pulling it, pointing it is AWDW (fear for thier life)..

Menacing is written like this in the Colorado Revised Statutes

18-3-206. Menacing



(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:

(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or

(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.