TexasCHLforum.com

Please read this article and comment

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

Surveillance cameras from a nearby business caught Harrison on camera shooting into the air, Gool said.

Was she under attack from the air? Was she stopping a threat? Of course the media never reports anything close to the real story but I cannot think of any reason to fire a warning shot.

Well, that was my one-free-per-month read of the Tribune, and it was enough.

The whole "warning shot" thing is always reckless and exceedingly dangerous. But I wonder what they'd have thrown at her if she'd shot the perp, instead?

Eleven words for ya: "Chicago," and "some of the most prohibitive gun laws in the country."

Scroll down to the next article intro:

Chicago Tribune wrote:Police promise more patrols as West Side bears brunt of Memorial Day gun violence

May 29, 2016 1:37 p.m.

A string of nearly two dozen shootings on the West Side has pushed the number of people shot during the Memorial Day weekend to at least 40, with two more days to go.

As of early Sunday morning, the toll stood at four dead and 36 wounded across the city, including a 15-year-old girl shot to death as she rode in a Jeep on Lake Shore Drive near Fullerton Avenue, police said. Last year, 12 people were killed and 44 people were wounded over the holiday weekend....

FCH wrote:

Surveillance cameras from a nearby business caught Harrison on camera shooting into the air, Gool said.

Was she under attack from the air? Was she stopping a threat? Of course the media never reports anything close to the real story but I cannot think of any reason to fire a warning shot.

Chicago is so anti-gun that people probably don't get much training om the proper use of firearms.

I wasn't there, I didn't see what happened. I can make some assumptions.
They were walking and someone approached them shot the man in the head. (sounds like an assassination?)
The woman goes into the car gets a gun, and shoots into the air. It doesn't sound like she was in danger by the time she got the gun and started shooting. It sounds like the killer was probably running away. I think she was shooting just to do something.

I think the gun wasn't hers and was probably her boyfriends. She didn't have the time, the forethought or the experience to think it out she just reacted without much thinking. Its hard to fault her and hope that she gets off, but if I think what happened is the way it happened. I can hardly blame the system for putting her through this. The Judge setting the bail seemed sympathetic, but they have guidelines too. I believe this could hapen in our more gun friendly Texas too. Although a jury would tend to be more sympathetic

Why is a warning shot bad? If a person just shot someone and is running away from you, you can't shoot someone running away, a warning shot just might stop them. If they are running away and you do shoot them you are in trouble. If they are running away and you shoot and miss that is more dangerous than shooting into the ground or up as the shot is likely gona hit someone, if not direct then after it goes in a car or building.

ispray wrote:Why is a warning shot bad? If a person just shot someone and is running away from you, you can't shoot someone running away, a warning shot just might stop them. If they are running away and you do shoot them you are in trouble. If they are running away and you shoot and miss that is more dangerous than shooting into the ground or up as the shot is likely gona hit someone, if not direct then after it goes in a car or building.

If you fire a warning shot "up" the bullet comes down somewhere. If you fire into the ground it can still cause damage. And if you think someone running away is going to stop? Yeah, sure. The DA would have a field day with you for firing that shot.

ispray wrote:Why is a warning shot bad? If a person just shot someone and is running away from you, you can't shoot someone running away, a warning shot just might stop them. If they are running away and you do shoot them you are in trouble. If they are running away and you shoot and miss that is more dangerous than shooting into the ground or up as the shot is likely gona hit someone, if not direct then after it goes in a car or building.

The bullet has to come down somewhere. And in Chicago, depending on location, up can be in the direction of a high rise or housing project. Why would anyone want to send lead down range, or up range as the vernacular may be, without an intended target or backstop?

My follow up thought would be if a known killer is running away, and you shoot up in the air and they stop as you described, then what? What is the next action to be taken by the "warning shooter?"

Besides dove who obviously "ducked" as I squeezed the trigger, I have never claimed to fire,warning shots.
I understand she may not have had any tactical training, but from what I have read, Chicago is one of the hardest places to get a carry license so she may have just been trying to repel anyone else from attacking, and, without the benefit of an attorney, told the police she fired "warning " shots.
But how did her fiancee manage to have a gun readily available to her?
Again. Poor reporting and mass media prejudice rules the day.

goose wrote:

ispray wrote:Why is a warning shot bad? If a person just shot someone and is running away from you, you can't shoot someone running away, a warning shot just might stop them. If they are running away and you do shoot them you are in trouble. If they are running away and you shoot and miss that is more dangerous than shooting into the ground or up as the shot is likely gona hit someone, if not direct then after it goes in a car or building.

The bullet has to come down somewhere. And in Chicago, depending on location, up can be in the direction of a high rise or housing project. Why would anyone want to send lead down range, or up range as the vernacular may be, without an intended target or backstop?

My follow up thought would be if a known killer is running away, and you shoot up in the air and they stop as you described, then what? What is the next action to be taken by the "warning shooter?"

Yes, I know what the law is. I don't think all laws and pretty sure most of the folks on this forum know some laws that you don't think is right, example some places you can't carry. I think a lot of people would stop if they are running and hear a shot and if they do I don't think they would run again because they already know you will shoot.. Their thought is the next one might get me and unless they are a radical Muslim suicide bomber most folks don't want to die. You shoot and miss even with a backstop, that backstop might have a window with someone inside. I think a warning shot is much less likely to hit someone that a shot that missed the target. I would much rather stop someone than kill them. So I am law abiding, just see a murder and he is running, I'll just watch and let him go to kill again without even trying to stop him. With the way it is now that is exactly what I would do.

Warning shots are always potentially bad when you get to court, because then the question arises: If you were under immediate threat of death or bodily harm, why weren't you shooting AT the threat? If you had the luxury of firing a warning shot you OBVIOUSLY did NOT see the threat as deadly/immediate.
Without knowing more about the situation, and the history of the individuals involved, it's hard to say why they didn't just cite the woman for discharging a firearm within city limits and and cut her loose......

ispray wrote: Yes, I know what the law is. I don't think all laws and pretty sure most of the folks on this forum know some laws that you don't think is right, example some places you can't carry.

What law did I mention?

ispray wrote:I think a lot of people would stop if they are running and hear a shot and if they do I don't think they would run again because they already know you will shoot.. Their thought is the next one might get me and unless they are a radical Muslim suicide bomber most folks don't want to die.

I can't ever imagine stopping running if I hear gunshots behind me. I might make a quick change of direction and look for cover but I'm not stopping. But all of that argument aside, let's assume the killer stops. I have the same questions. Are they going to walk back to you and surrender? What is your next move after they stop?

ispray wrote: You shoot and miss even with a backstop, that backstop might have a window with someone inside. I think a warning shot is much less likely to hit someone that a shot that missed the target.

I 100% agree that there are likely to be windows with people inside of them. that is why I am proposing to not fire warning shots. You are proposing a huge gamble when hoping that a warning shot is less likely to hit someone. I don;t want to take that gamble or encourage anyone else to. The bullet doesn't know your intentions nor is it affected by them. This is where I think you will find that most folks on this forum will not take that shot.

ispray wrote:I would much rather stop someone than kill them. So I am law abiding, just see a murder and he is running, I'll just watch and let him go to kill again without even trying to stop him. With the way it is now that is exactly what I would do.

I hope that you will reconsider the warning shot portion of your plan.

ispray wrote:Yes, I know what the law is. I don't think all laws and pretty sure most of the folks on this forum know some laws that you don't think is right, example some places you can't carry. I think a lot of people would stop if they are running and hear a shot and if they do I don't think they would run again because they already know you will shoot.. Their thought is the next one might get me and unless they are a radical Muslim suicide bomber most folks don't want to die. You shoot and miss even with a backstop, that backstop might have a window with someone inside. I think a warning shot is much less likely to hit someone that a shot that missed the target. I would much rather stop someone than kill them. So I am law abiding, just see a murder and he is running, I'll just watch and let him go to kill again without even trying to stop him. With the way it is now that is exactly what I would do.

Everyone has laws they don't think are right, but that doesn't mean you get to pick and choose which ones you want to obey.

I think a warning shot is much less likely to hit someone that a shot that missed the target.

Are you willing to bet someone elses life or health on that?

So I am law abiding, just see a murder and he is running, I'll just watch and let him go to kill again without even trying to stop him.

You get a description and call the police. You may not like it, but you were not in immediate danger nor was anyone else (the person was running away). Unless they are standing there pointing their weapon at you or another person you have no justification to fire your weapon in any direction.

Other than at a firing range, I operate under the viewpoint that I will only discharge a weapon to stop an immediate, deadly threat to myself or a third party. The only warning will be a verbal warning. Many law enforcement agencies I am familiar with go by that policy. Some even go so far as to not allow firing at a moving vehicle. My personal policy is to not discharge a weapon to protect the loss of property, even though that can be legal in certain cases. It is not worth the potential legal civil challenges. Just remember, you are responsible for that projectile from the time it exits the barrel until the time is comes to rest. Be ready for the consequences of everything that occurs between those two points.

ispray wrote:

goose wrote:

ispray wrote:Why is a warning shot bad? If a person just shot someone and is running away from you, you can't shoot someone running away, a warning shot just might stop them. If they are running away and you do shoot them you are in trouble. If they are running away and you shoot and miss that is more dangerous than shooting into the ground or up as the shot is likely gona hit someone, if not direct then after it goes in a car or building.

The bullet has to come down somewhere. And in Chicago, depending on location, up can be in the direction of a high rise or housing project. Why would anyone want to send lead down range, or up range as the vernacular may be, without an intended target or backstop?

My follow up thought would be if a known killer is running away, and you shoot up in the air and they stop as you described, then what? What is the next action to be taken by the "warning shooter?"

Yes, I know what the law is. I don't think all laws and pretty sure most of the folks on this forum know some laws that you don't think is right, example some places you can't carry. I think a lot of people would stop if they are running and hear a shot and if they do I don't think they would run again because they already know you will shoot.. Their thought is the next one might get me and unless they are a radical Muslim suicide bomber most folks don't want to die. You shoot and miss even with a backstop, that backstop might have a window with someone inside. I think a warning shot is much less likely to hit someone that a shot that missed the target. I would much rather stop someone than kill them. So I am law abiding, just see a murder and he is running, I'll just watch and let him go to kill again without even trying to stop him. With the way it is now that is exactly what I would do.

You may want to rethink your plan and then change your screen name. Maybe use something like "ishootdeliberatelyandintentionally"