Pulis 'di kailangang mag-warning shot --Supreme Court

[espeago]

Shooting a warning shot is never an option, and is against the law in most if not all in the States.

[espeago]

true. shempre if a crazed person's already heading for you with a bladed weapon, do you still fire a warning shot? good luck if you're given the second chance to really fire at him after your warning shot.

that goes without saying na the shot should be to bring down the attacker, pero in those cases, nothing's for sure.

The irony to this is that you probably would have been justified in using lethal force if you shoot in the direction of the perpetrators (instead of intentionally shooting into the air), when they started to advance on you with a weapon.

[nugundam93]

i don't see the point kasi minsan with "human rights" advocates.

they take pity on the suspect but what about the victim and the family of the victim?

[BoEinG_747]

i don't see the point kasi minsan with "human rights" advocates.

they take pity on the suspect but what about the victim and the family of the victim?

korek ka jan sir nugundam ...pag ginawa n mga pulis trabaho nila ...na paningin ng taga human rights may nilabag sila ...pag minalas sila pa nakasuhan ...pero kung sila naman naagrabyado...

basta para sa ako iputok ko na lang talaga agad..wala na arning warning pa...
makaka ilag pa at baka makatakbo pa lalo

[flakez]

kalokohan yang mga human rights na yan. minsan sobra na silang OA!

[raefel_14]

i agree with fLaKeZ..

[leolop]

all supreme court decisions have to be read and understood in its entirety. you cannot just isolate the dispositive portion (the part that gives the ruling on the case) and then take this as the general rule

as always, all supreme court decisions are made with the particular facts of the case on hand.

in this case, the supreme court, rightly or wrongly, made a judgement as to the lack of the need of a warning shot.

i would be interested in reading the full text of this decision and find out more. paki post naman ang title ng case and date of the decision

second the motion. kahit month of the decision ok na para mahanap sa website ng supreme court (assuming it's a 2005 case). very interested rin kasi ako dun sa particular circumstances surrounding the case.

guys, sana wag naman tayo mabilis mag condemn ng human rights and human rights advocates, many of whom are victims themselves or families of victims of human rights violations. kahit naman sila would agree that shooting in self defense or out of necessity is a justifying circumstance.