Saturday, November 7, 2015

No well-intentioned deed goes unpunished. Firearm trumps club, but he put the bullet in the wrong place.

Man arrested for threatening Mt. Juliet motorist with club
Seigfried allegedly threatened the man with a club, which led to the victim pulling out a handgun and shooting it into the ground. Seigfried was booked into the Wilson County jail and charged with aggravated assault and disorderly conduct. The victim was issued a citation for discharging a firearm within city limits.
If he honestly felt in fear for his life, he should have shot the Son of Beelzebub center mass.


Chiu ChunLing said...

"Let's do the talking about the fine motor skills vs the gross motor skills. When you under the stress, the fine motor skill don't work anymore...."(spoken rapidly in heavy Japanese accent)

If someone gets in a violent confrontation and ends up blasting a hole in the ground instead of the target, I'm not inclined to be excessively critical. There are worse ways to demonstrate your loss of fine motor skill, and a shot placed in the ground between yourself and an opponent equipped for melee isn't completely worthless, as this case would seem to demonstrate (even if you get a ticket).

Of course, such cases emphasize the importance of mental and emotional preparation for the possibility of a violent confrontation necessitating resort to lethal force. But exactly how to accomplish such training is highly dependent on individual circumstances, and not all methods which are readily accessible to everyone really work reliably.

This is why it is critical to never point your gun at anything you aren't willing to put a bullet in. Because when your adrenaline is pumping, you may not get to choose exactly when your finger pulls the trigger (in addition to all the other sorts of things that can happen with a loaded firearm). So you draw, then bring your aim up to the target in a controlled manner, and if your trigger finger decided to respond in a less perfectly controlled manner, oh well.

Otto Didact said...

"If he honestly felt in fear for his life, he should have shot the Son of Beelzebub center mass."

+10K "Warning shots" are illegal because they're damned dangerous. If the situation is dangerous enough to warrant drawing the weapon in the first place and drawing a bead on the potential assailant doesn't stop them in their tracks, then a shot to CoM is entirely justified. Somebody wasn't properly trained or had forgotten what they were taught. Too bad they only violated an ordinance and so can only catch a (doubtless hefty) fine. Coupla days in the klink might do this moke some good.

Anonymous said...

If you're gonna shoot, shoot! Don't talk! I agree. The guy was armed with an assault weapon. Center of mass.

Sean said...

My first warning shot usually passes through my opponents skull.

Anonymous said...

All things considered, the armed citizen has to pay a minor fine and does not lose his ability to carry or purchase firearms.

Club wielding citizen is still alive and has a chance to consider the error of his ways.

I suggest this isn't necessarily a bad outcome.


maxstone9999 said...

If a warning shot stops the assailant and you don't have to shoot him then in my mind it was justified. Violent self defense is when absolutely necessary. The line between murder and justified self defense is razor thin although I do also get the argument that the dead don't make the best witnesses or plantiffs.

Anonymous said...

Warning shots should be hits.

Anonymous said...

Gun grabbers love to latch on to the idea that guns can only be effective if used to harm. I support warning shots in certain circumstances because if a threat can be eliminated absent killing I see it as a good thing.
Newsflash - some people will do anything they can to avoid shootings other human beings.
Ironic it is - people talk about the "danger" of warning shot in the context of calling for actual harm done.
Guess what - offering one last warning, a dire and direct one, like firing a warning shot - is a matter of individual liberty!!
Saying someone "should have" or shouldn't have" is just like saying "it's too dangerous to carry a firearm , you know, like the ANTIS say!

It is not for me to decide how another defends themselves, how another exercises their right to arms as a matter of self defense. Were I on the jury I would vote not guilty for that reason. It amazes me how many gun owners fall into the trap of being ever so willing to usurp the rights of another, criminalizing an action taken in self defense...all while claiming to champion the individual nature of this God given right.

Making this fella into a criminal is something we should be standing against - no differently than if it were a disagreement about open carry versus concealed carry. Remember - criminalizing a warning shot is no different than criminalizing a missed shot. Yeah - it is just "too dangerous" to MISS!! Gotta criminalize missing along with warning shots, right? Same principal!

It's one thing to say what you would do..but another to be in that situation and actually have to choose. Things always appear easier in the abstract than they are in reality. I once fired a warning shot and stay by doing so to this day. I am very happy to defend it today rather than live with killing someone I didn't have to kill to defuse a very tense and ugly set of circumstances. I am fine with it knowing today that a warning shot served to end what amounted to be a crazy set of circumstances of misunderstanding and mistaken identity. Shame on all those who discount the merits of a right thing to do. Fact is, sometimes a warning shot is every bit as appropriate as a double tap to the chest.
One more thing to keep in mind - you know those who say "he shoulda shot to wound instead of to kill"? You know how that is scoffed at? Yeah, this is the same damn thing. An individual has to choose - in the moment. How about just respecting that RIGHT across the board?

Kenneth Moore said...

Don't hesitate. The time will come soon enough.

White Bear said...

I spent over 30 years as a cop. If I had been threatened with a club and the threat was imminent, it's two to the chest and one to the head; no warning shots.

It's ironic that the shooter here would have been in less trouble if he had dropped the guy, but unfortunately that's the law.

If I were the cop here, my preference would have been to give the guy a warning, but with prosecutors generally being politicians, they probably didn't have a choice.

oughtsix said...

It's grammatically more correct as well.

Anonymous said...

Let me take the devil's advocate position, here. It's entirely possible that, under stress, the victim either missed or had a negligent-discharge. The important thing is that it stopped the threat.