Another thread brought about by Liberty Sanders ordeal

[finity]

UPDATE: Not Guilty verdict in dog ‘warning shot’ case - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

In reading the above article I felt it was necessary to point out that I don't think the "precedent" was set that Mr. Workman or, it seems, LS believe it to have been.

From the other thread, (https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/114140-bad_experience_with_carmel_pd.html - just in case someone missed it) I don't see what the judge said as establishing a precedent that we don't have to shoot-to-kill.

First off, there never was a "shoot-to-kill" precedent. The precedent has always been "do what is necessary to defend yourself & no more". If the BG dies then so be it. If he lives then that is all the better.

The advice against a warning shot is based on the fact that you aren't allowed to use deadly force without a clear & present danger to life or limb(i.e. imminent threat of serious bodily harm). If you are drawing & firing but not AT the threat then that begs the question, "were you really under imminent threat of serious harm?" It is better from a defensive standpoint (both physically & legally) to fully intend on immediately dealing with the threat if you ever draw & moreso if you actually fire.

As to what the judge may have meant when he said something about police being required to give a warning before using deadly force, I'm not sure that he meant what some think he meant, either.

Granted, I understand I wasn't there to hear everything that he said & I'm going by just my limited understanding but it sounds as if he was just countering the prosecutors assertion that LS wasn't allowed to fire a warning shot because even the police can't do that.

Obviously the judge "knew" otherwise BUT...

Is it really OK for the police to fire a "warning shot" as their requisite "feasible warning" before using deadly force? Would we think it was reasonable for a cop to shoot over the head of a BG before he actually shot at him if he was already justified in using deadly force?

Or is it more likely that the intent of the IC is that the police use verbal warnings before using DF if feasible. "Stop or I'll shoot" seems more likely to be reasonable than "bang...".

So, did the judge really "know" that police are allowed to give a warning by firing a shot?...

In LS case a verbal warning wouldn't have worked. They are dogs. They don't understand "stop biting me or I'll blow your head off". A warning "shot" in that case was more reasonable than a verbal warning. I don't think that would be the case against a person, though.

Next, the judge in this case can't set "precedent". Maybe in his own courtroom but definitely not in others throughout the state. This, ultimately, is just one lowly city court judge's interpretation of the law. I wouldn't bet my life in prison that it's going to count anywhere else or under any other circumstance, especially against a human instead of a dog. Nope, not at all.

Lastly, if it DID set any kind of a precedent I don't think it was a good one. What it tells me is that, since some judges think it's OK that a non-LEO CAN fire a warning shot then maybe we ought to REQUIRE them to give a warning before using deadly force. If the police have to give a warning then why not non-police?

I don't want that. I don't want the justice system second guessing if I could have given a warning first. It's already bad enough that they second guess whether my use of force was reasonable or not. This is just one more variable to have to deal with in an already stressful situation & it can lead to nowhere good.

I wanted to post this here to prevent taking away LS's thunder for a fine win in court & the kudo's he deserved for "standing up to the man".

 

[Benny]

I wanted to post this here to prevent taking away LS's thunder for a fine win in court & the kudo's he deserved for "standing up to the man".

Uh yeah, mission accomplished.

 

[finity]

Uh yeah, mission accomplished.

Was it too soon? How long is it appropriate to wait to question a resident hero? (Nothing against you LS. You did great!)

I had a few thoughts & wanted to get them out here.

I didn't want to post in his thread & take anything away from him there.

I really don't see the problem.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Finity, I hear you.

I used the term "precedent" when I talked to Workman more as a term of art.

In Carmel, at least while this judge is sitting, the PD has learned that if they jack-up an inoffensive gun owner, using standards that they make up on the spot that are in clear violation of the language that their own city ordinance specifies, it's not going to fly.

Both the arresting officer and the prosecutor made it clear that since I am a retired LEO, and since "warning shots" are frowned upon (both the officer and I testifed that our respective agencies prohibit them) that I should have "known better" than to fire one. In other words, their contention was that since I was ONCE under these restrictions while employed as a LEO, that I should continue to be bound by them now.

Neither the officer or the prosecutor seemed to be able to grasp the distinction that a "warning shot" is effective only against an opponent who is capable of rational thought, is able to anticipate the future, and who is able to consider the results of his actions, something a dog clearly cannot do.

The judge made it clear that even if an agency prohibits warning shots, this is a policy matter with each agency and does not carry the force of law. He did not opine that an officer MUST fire a warning shot, only that SOME warning is called for under the law, IF feasible, and that nothing in the law prohibits either LEOs or taxpayers from firing warning shots if they choose.

He further pointed out that I'm not a LEO any more, and that my past training and department policies could NOT be used as a yardstick to judge my current actions, and that it was inappropriate for the officer to charge me on that basis.

Essentially, this officer charged ME because I did something that HE is not allowed to do.

The judge pretty much was saying that it was up to ME, not the Carmel PD to judge how much force I needed to use, provided of course that I did it safely. The prosecution's contention that my firing a shot into the ground was reckless, but firing multiple shots into the dogs would have been fine was ridiculous and the judge clearly saw it as such.

 

[Benny]

I don't see a "problem" with it either, but there was no reason to waste your breathe(fingers) on typing out the last sentence.

 

[finity]

I don't see a "problem" with it either, but there was no reason to waste your breathe(fingers) on typing out the last sentence.

Ok, I guess you're right but I wanted to make sure that no one thought I was trying to rain on LS's well deserved parade.

My bad.

So, any thoughts on the topic of the thread?

 

[Denny347]

Is it really OK for the police to fire a "warning shot" as their requisite "feasible warning" before using deadly force? Would we think it was reasonable for a cop to shoot over the head of a BG before he actually shot at him if he was already justified in using deadly force?

Or is it more likely that the intent of the IC is that the police use verbal warnings before using DF if feasible. "Stop or I'll shoot" seems more likely to be reasonable than "bang...".

Verbal warning only. If I fire a warning shot, I will promptly get fired. Verbal challenges/warnings are a part of our pistol qualifications. So much so, that when I had 2 pits running at me, I drew my pistol and shouted "STOP POLICE!" out of habit. Muscle memory can be a great thing. I caught myself and felt kinda stupid...I looked around to see if anyone was outside looking at me . BTW, I have personally taken a run where a person shot an aggressive dog. An older man was jogging on the shoulder of a public street. As he passes a house, a dog (cannot remember the breed) came running (unchained and no fence, all contrary to city code) and came within feet under a full sprint, barking. Runner pulled out a pistol promptly shot said dog, never leaving the road. Dog owners call saying their dog was attacked. I get there and hear the story. Dog owners say the runner came onto their property and shot their dog...minding its own business. Well, I go out to the street and locate the shell casing. Confirming the runner never left the street. I told him he did the right thing and let him finish his run. If the jogger had shot into the ground the result from me would have been the same. Based on Liberty's version, I do not see the wrong. If you cannot keep your dogs contained and they become aggressive, don't come crying to me when they end up shot.

 

[finity]

Finity, I hear you.

I used the term "precedent" when I talked to Workman more as a term of art.

Thanks for clearing all that up, Liberty.

and that nothing in the law prohibits either LEOs or taxpayers from firing warning shots if they choose.

If he qulified that statement above as it being HIS opinion & would be treated as such IN CARMEL then I agree. If he used that as a blanket statement for all jurisdictions & all courts in IN then I'm not sure I would rely on that as a defense in, say, Dekalb County.

The judge pretty much was saying that it was up to ME, not the Carmel PD to judge how much force I needed to use, provided of course that I did it safely. The prosecution's contention that my firing a shot into the ground was reckless, but firing multiple shots into the dogs would have been fine was ridiculous and the judge clearly saw it as such.

Excellent! The judge sounds like he has some common sense, at least.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

...when I had 2 pits running at me, I drew my pistol and shouted "STOP POLICE!" out of habit.

This is chock full o' awesome!
I openly chortled.
Reps to you, good sir!

(when the two Rotts charged me, all I could manage to blurt out was, "Oh feck!" BANG!)

BTW...you didn't need to shoot those dogs. You shoulda called the cops. Wait...

 

[dross]

Verbal warning only. If I fire a warning shot, I will promptly get fired. Verbal challenges/warnings are a part of our pistol qualifications. So much so, that when I had 2 pits running at me, I drew my pistol and shouted "STOP POLICE!" out of habit. .

Don't you feel foolish for one second, Denny. Verbal warnings to the lower mammals have a long tradition in law enforcement. If it's good enough for the Duke, it's good enough for you:



YouTube - Rat writ, writ for a rat.

 

[Roadie]

Verbal warning only. If I fire a warning shot, I will promptly get fired. Verbal challenges/warnings are a part of our pistol qualifications. So much so, that when I had 2 pits running at me, I drew my pistol and shouted "STOP POLICE!" out of habit. Muscle memory can be a great thing. I caught myself and felt kinda stupid...I looked around to see if anyone was outside looking at me . BTW, I have personally taken a run where a person shot an aggressive dog. An older man was jogging on the shoulder of a public street. As he passes a house, a dog (cannot remember the breed) came running (unchained and no fence, all contrary to city code) and came within feet under a full sprint, barking. Runner pulled out a pistol promptly shot said dog, never leaving the road. Dog owners call saying their dog was attacked. I get there and hear the story. Dog owners say the runner came onto their property and shot their dog...minding its own business. Well, I go out to the street and locate the shell casing. Confirming the runner never left the street. I told him he did the right thing and let him finish his run. If the jogger had shot into the ground the result from me would have been the same. Based on Liberty's version, I do not see the wrong. If you cannot keep your dogs contained and they become aggressive, don't come crying to me when they end up shot.

I woke my wife up laughing at that visual... "STOP POLICE"

In all seriousness though, what a great way to know your training has stuck with you, eh?