Man fires "warning shot"; kills trespasser

[AZAK]

Well, this all depends on exactly what the "alleged perp" was doing.

It is very frustrating at times that in situations akin to this, that one must wait until AFTER a crime has been committed (and provable as such) before one can take action. (Please note we really have VERY little information about this situation.) Just talking about for example, the historians/police, can document after the crime has taken place, but can be limited in their actions prior to the actual crime. (Same as citizens oftentimes.) And no offense intended toward LE. At least if they want to survive the legal system in this country. You know that rail on your gun? Accessory rail for camcorder!

Want an eye opener, check out the percentage of lawyers in the world practicing in this country comparing our population percentage to that of the world's population. (And why do they call it "practicing", for what they charge I would think that by now they would at least say that they knew what they were doing!!!) I, for one, don't really want to go to a professional who tells me he/she is practicing... (fill in the blank here) law, surgery, dentistry... I want one confident enough to at least say that they are more than proficient at what they do! May be even a specialist.

Not enough of the story to really know anything. But, I got to stand on a soap box for a couple of minutes!

 

[BillCA]

As with most news reports, we have no idea what ALL of the facts are nor are news reporters a reliable source of detailed information.

But a few things showed up in the news story that are worth addressing;

American hired security guards, and a company official also asked a welder who works for the company to help out on security issues, Bravo said.

This will put the corporation (American Iron and Metal) into the "hot seat" with "deep pockets". Since they asked an employee to assist in security issues, the focus will likely be on what restrictions or responsibilities the worker was given by the company.

Noriega told investigators the man who was shot came at him wielding a baseball bat.

Bravo said physical evidence at the scene and an account by a security guard contradicts what Noriega told investigators.

We don't know what the evidence is, however we presume that the welder claimed self-defense and lacked sufficent evidence to support that claim. A lot will depend on how damning the evidence is and how "contrary" to the welder's version of events.

As to "warning shots" -- almost my entire life it has been stated that warning shots are dangerous and unnecessary as a general principle. There may be a narrow list of exceptions to this rule, but they are generally not a good idea.

 

[Alleykat]

Playboy:

I am no expert but the way it was described to me once was that even in property defense shootings the perp must be in the action of or showing clear intent to do significant damage to personal and private property. Simply crossing a property line is not validation

Apparently whoever explained "it" to you, whatever "it" is, never read the Texas code. It's pretty forthright. Suggest that you read it yourself and see if you come to the same conclusion. There's no requirement that the perp make any advances that might be construed as escalating to causing bodily damage to anybody.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Apparently whoever explained "it" to you, whatever "it" is, never read the Texas code. It's pretty forthright. Suggest that you read it yourself and see if you come to the same conclusion. There's no requirement that the perp make any advances that might be construed as escalating to causing bodily damage to anybody.

I cannot find anything that in anyway suggests shooting is permissible for simple trespass. Could you please point that part out to me and others? In fact, when the law was all over the news a few years back all the supporters were clearly saying this law did not give carte blanch permission to kill anyone.

 

[CraigC]

This is reckless behavior at it's worst by someone who does not seem to possess the level of judgement needed to possess a firearm.

Also, you CAN NOT kill to protect property or for simple trespass.

Funny how quickly the character judgements and legal speculation comes from this crowd without knowing all the facts. What else is new.

the way it was described to me once was that even in property defense shootings the perp must be in the action of or showing clear intent to do significant damage to personal and private property.

This is at least an improvement over the last time we had this argument.

 

[ssilicon]

The wisdom of warning shots is debatable, and I am not intending to debate that or take a side at this time. But I do want to say, that if a "warning" shot is intended, you shouldn't be pointing the muzzle at the person you want to "warn", because obviously, it will wind up being just a little more than a warning.

That is why I agree that "warning shot" is just a made up story here.

 

[tplumeri]

(And why do they call it "practicing", for what they charge I would think that by now they would at least say that they knew what they were doing!!!)

hey! I resemble that remark!
I "practice" medicine, but I know what I'm doing, most of the time,
well, more often than not, usually.......
never mind.

 

[AZAK]

but I know what I'm doing, most of the time,
well, more often than not, usually.......
never mind

Sounds like the voices inside my head, sometimes...

 

[B.N.Real]

He fired warning shots.

The guy came at him with a baseball bat.

The guard says it did'nt happen that way.

The guard company says their guards are only instructed to call police when criminals are found.

This guys going to jail for murder.

If a baseball bat had been found,it would have been self defense.

 

[Huntergirl]

If that was a warning shot, then he's a lousy shot.

 

[44capnball]

based on a couple events I have seen in my lifetime, which news media reported on, they couldn't get their facts straight if they had to.

That's with an ordinary issue. When it comes to anything gun related, I have yet to see a media story that portrays it objectively. If they can work the word "assault weapon" in there, they will.

I agree that it is wrong to reward criminals by letting them sue.

 

[Salty1]

I read that a few times just to fully understand what they were saying, unfortunatly it is what they did not say. Based on this article there seems to be many holes that should be explained in detail. Personally I consider this to be poor writing and the reporting has little value to me by leaving out the details. Would sure like to see what that hand gun actually was. The one good point was everybody's comments on warning shots, never, ever, if you need to pull your handgun then it needs to be shot and not as a warning.

 

[ssn vet]

Can anyone on this forum name a characteristic of an assault-type pistol?

undoubtedly they are black in color and make liberals wet their pants.

 

[PT111]

I don't know what happened but condeming the media for poor reporting or using the "assualt rifle" term doesn't make up for the royal screw-ups on everyone's part that was involved. You don't tell an employee to play Dirty Harry because he carries a gun. This is exactly what the brady Bunch loves to hear. Barney Fife with his Tec-9 can't even fire a warning shot without hitting someone. Great shot there Barney. The company hires security guards but asks one of the workers to help out. What the heck did they hire the guards for?

Was the victim even trying to break in? Already they say that the physical evidence doesn't match Barney's story. He better find him a new line in a hurry. How about the other fellow that was supposedly trying to break in? According to the story he isn't going to be charged with anything. WHY NOT?

There are enough screw-ups in this to keep the Brady Bunch busy for weeks putting out press released and enough to make any personal injury lawyer smile. As I said Old Barney 'Dirty Harry' Fife better find him a new story in a hurry or learn to talk sweetly to Bubba.

 

[HoraceHogsnort]

Just outside the OK Corall in Arizona I came across an open carry cowboy "mall ninja" type who assured me any property owner in Arizona could just flat blast the snot out of anybody who so much as put a foot on the property. He also told me it was against the law to photograph his dog.

 

[OldMarksman]

In ... Colorado you can [kill to protect property]

Are you certain?

This is the CO law on the use of deadly force, as cited in a June 2006 Appelate Court ruling:

Under § 18-1-704(2)(a), C.R.S. 2005, a person may use “deadly
physical force” in self-defense only when (1) he or she has
reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he, she, or
another, is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great
bodily injury; and (2) he or she reasonably believes a lesser degree
of force is inadequate.

“Deadly physical force” is defined in § 18-1-901(3)(d), C.R.S.
2005, as “force, the intended, natural, and probable consequence of
which is to produce death, and which does, in fact, produce death.”

And from 18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property.
Statute text

A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.[italics added]

Note the distinction: "reasonable and appropriate" force for the defense of property, deadly force only for the defense of person.

There is another section that allows deadly force in the defense of premises against arson.

Do not rely on any of this as legal advice.

 

[Recon7]

My state has a similar provision to use lethal force to prevent arson, but that is only arson in the first degree, arson of an occupied structure. So that too is to defend a person's life.

Also you can't just shoot somebody in the back as they light a match, you have to try any and all other means before lethal force.

What little I know about the law I have learned that memorizing the law means jack, you have to know case history and how the law is enforced if you really want to know how the law works.

 

[triggerhappy2006]

If you think you might be giving a "warning shot" on occasion keep a blank in the chamber

 

[Playboypenguin]

If you think you might be giving a "warning shot" on occasion keep a blank in the chamber

Not to jump on you, we all make bad decisions before thinking them all the way through sometimes, but keeping a blank in a SD gun is a very bad idea. I would not want to pull the trigger in a split second, life or death situation and have a blank go off.

 

[triggerhappy2006]

Down in Georgia my friend had this problem with the neighbors "kids"(by which i mean 16-17years olds) going back behind their garage where the dogs pen was and throwing sticks and rocks at the dogs at night, so he staked out in camos one night with a clip loaded with blanks in an ar-15 when the kids came by and started messing with the dogs he emptyed the clip, they ran off crying like little girls and never came back.
as long as you are able to unconsciously train yourself to chamber a live round i dont see the problem, it would be the same as if you kept the chamber empty at least in my mind. I mean my HD shotgun is always loaded with an empty chamber so as soon as i pick it up i automaticly rack it, if you have property that is well known to have tresspassers and you patrol it with the intention of giving a "warning shot" keep a blank in the chamber to spook them and the you have the clip if things turn south(no pun intended).