Active Response Training – Articles

Message body

 

 

 

 

December 7, 2017 status – email correspondence:

Message body

——-

To

Message body

Also, in follow up, your blog mailings were received by me (for which I have now unsubscribed).

Nathan Zeliff, Esq.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Nathan Zeliff <zlaw@taxsos.com>
To: Greg Ellifritz <greg1095@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: ShastaDefense

This is the ONLY e-mail I received from you.  I enter my e-mail account multiple times a day, and have new e-mails throughout the day (I send and receive).

I have still never received the e-mail advising me to take down the content. I had sent you a request for permission; however, my first response from you was  the”clown” comment on your facebook and the derogatory postings. As per my e-mail (below) I already removed the content.

Request is made that you please remove all the derogatory and comment strings from your facebook  account  (and any other sources). They are false. I will  then remove my response on my blog in order to move forward.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Nathan Zeliff, Esq.

From: Greg Ellifritz <greg1095@yahoo.com>
To: Nathan Zeliff <zlaw@taxsos.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: ShastaDefense

Nathan,

This will be the fourth email I sent to you from three different accounts.  The first two seemed to go through.

I got this error message on the third message.

This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

>>> Zlaw@taxsos.com (while not connected): 554 5.4.7 [internal] exceeded max retries without delivery

You might want to check your email system.

I don’t know if this one will go through or not, but I’ll give it one more try.  I responded to your original query (3 times) asking you to remove my content.

Greg

From: Nathan Zeliff <zlaw@taxsos.com>
To: “greg1095@yahoo.com” <greg1095@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 1:38 AM
Subject: ShastaDefense

I had written you for permission for the posting. I believe this was done through your on line contact form.  As I recall, I had advised that if you didn’t agree, that I would remove the information (you should have the post in your system). However, the first I learned of any “response” was by finding your derogatory comment on facebook (December 6, 2017).  That was only because I did a search for ShastaDefense. I don’t know where you are sending your e-mails, but my e-mail is set forth above. You could have called me, e-mailed me at the above address, or used the U.S. Mail. But,for some reason you decided to refer to me as a “clown”, encouraging your blog followers to make unprofessional and derogatory remarks (which are continuing).

You have continued to falsely advise persons that you have written me several times me, and that I haven’t responded. Again, no e-mails were received by me, except for your Blog Mailings that you send to subscribers for your articles (for which I unsubscribed today). Moreover I called and left a voice message for you this morning (California Time) and have received no response.

All article references had very clear attribution to your site and you. None were even remotely claimed to be my work.  The most recent had very large print at the top of the article with your link.

They have all been removed. If you see any left, please advise and I will remove.

Contrary to your blog followers, the defense network continues with permission.  They are professional and welcomed my promotion and referral of visitors to their site.

Comments on your blog are demeaning and false.

Nathan Zeliff, Esq.

530-474-3267

  ———-END OF    E-MAILS  ———-
Today, December 6, 2017, I found negative comments on FACE Book from  http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/  as to my  linking and posting of his articles. I only found the negative comments after my making a search.
On December 6, I wrote Active Response Training, after viewing the negative comments, as follows (through his Comments input form, because I couldn’t find a telephone number or other e-mail).-  My webs site is ShastaDefense. I have been posting your articles (excerpts with links to your site).  All were linked directly to your website with full attribution. Recently I posted an entire article and WROTE you via e-mail (this was actually his comment form) asking if that was okay with you. I didn’t receive any response. I viewed your articles as informative and educational.
I have not received any e-mail from you. It was only because I did a search that I found your negative statement. My phone number is 530-474-3267. Please call to discuss. If you desire that I stop linking to your articles I will do so. It would be appreciated if you would speak or communicate with me.”
I only found out about the “problem” by doing a search on face book. I didn’t receive any phone call or e-mail from you. A professional approach would have been to contact me, and not make derogatory comments. Or, you could have responded to my communication to you on this subject.
I viewed the articles and information as being very informative, and important for CCW  holders to learn. However, I am removing links to Active Response Training articles.  I will stop referring persons to your  resource. Your unprofessional comments and false statement about having contacted me diminishes your credibility. I have my direct telephone number on my  my web site and my mailing address. You also have my  direct e-mail address.  You could have simply made contact. The unprofessional comments that you and your followers made  are not justified.
Active Response Training could have merely responded to my recent communication concerning posting of articles (permission request) (beyond partial information posting with a link  to the full article at your site) which I made  before   Response Training made false statements.
December 6, 2017, I located a number for you and called (morning, California time). I left a voice message.  However, I still haven’t received any communication from you on this subject.  The links to your articles have been removed . If you see any left over, please advise and I will remove them also.  I know persons were learning of your site through my links and my classes.
I had recently started printing out a few of your key articles (at my cost, and at no charge to my students). My name wasn’t even on the pages (they were just stapled and handed out  to a few students – e.g., suicide bombers, surviving vehicle attacks). I did this because I felt the content was important so that people would become aware, and maybe save a family from a bomber, etc… . That was all at additional cost to me and the only contact information on the page was YOUR BLOG.  That process has now stopped. My CCW classes seek to instruct students.  I routinely am advised by students that in my 4 hour renewal classes (required under California law), that I cover important matters that were not even addressed by other instructors in their FULL  original 12 hour class.

Warning Shots

Self-Defense: Are Warning Shots a Good Idea?

By Massad Ayoob December 17, 2014

Is it ever a good idea to fire warning shots in self-defense?

Warning shots have long been prohibited by most American police departments. Massad Ayoob spells out 10 good reasons why.

The “Warning Shots Are a Good Idea” Myth

You know a myth is widespread when it emanates from the White House. In 2013 while campaigning for a ban on so-called “assault rifles,” Vice-President Joseph Biden told the public he had advised his wife that if there was a home invasion, she was to take a double barrel shotgun and fire both barrels upwards. One can only imagine how the Secret Service Vice-Presidential detail felt when they heard that. I can tell you that across the nation lawyers, cops, and gun-wise people rolled their eyes and shook their heads.

Here are 10 reasons why firing a warning shot is not a good idea.

  1. What goes up, must come down. The stereotyped warning shot is fired skyward. Shooting live ammunition into the sky is a practice normally associated with Third World countries where respect for human life is not as great as in the United States. There are many cases on record where such bullets “fell from the sky” and killed innocent people. In one New England case, a man carelessly fired a warning shot upward in the state’s largest city; the bullet struck and killed an innocent bystander who was on the upper porch of a tenement building.
  2. To fire the warning shot safely, the shooter would have to aim it into something that could safely absorb the projectile. This would force the shooter to take his eyes off of the potentially dangerous criminal opponent he was trying to intimidate – always a poor idea tactically.
  3. What appears to be a safe place to plant the warning bullet, may not be. I know a police officer who, trying to break up a riot, fired a warning shot from his 12 gauge shotgun downward from the upper floor walkway of a hotel into what appeared in the dark to be a soft patch of earth. It was, instead, darkened pavement. Double-ought buckshot pellets caromed off the hard surface, one striking a young woman in the eye.
  4. Suppose the person who caused you to fire the warning shot runs around a corner. Another gunshot rings out; someone else has shot the man, in a moment when deadly force was not warranted. The bullet goes through and through, fatally, and is not recovered. The man who wrongfully shot him claims that he fired the warning shot, and it was your bullet that caused the wrongful death. It’s your word against his…unless you can say, “Officer, you’ll find the bullet from MY gun in the friendly oak tree right over there.” But it would have been better in these circumstances if you had not fired at all.
  5. Warning shots can lead to misunderstandings with deadly unintended consequences. Years ago in the Great Lakes area, two police officers were searching opposite ends of a commercial greenhouse where a burglar alarm had just gone off. One confronted the burglar, who ran. The officer raised his arm skyward for the traditional silver screen warning shot. As is often the case, the blast just made the suspect run faster. On the other end of the building, the brother officer heard the shot and shouted to his partner, asking if he was all right. But the powerful handgun had gone off so close to the first officer’s unprotected ear that his ears were ringing, and he didn’t hear the shout. The second officer then saw the suspect running. Concluding that the man must have killed the partner who didn’t answer, that second officer shot and killed a man who was guilty only of burglary and running from the police.
  6. A single gunshot sounds to earwitnesses (and, depending on the circumstances, even eyewitnesses) as if you tried to kill a man you were only trying to warn. Did you yell the standard movie line, “Stop or I’ll shoot”? It could sound to an earwitness as if you threatened to kill a man for not obeying you, and then tried to do exactly that. Don’t make threats you don’t have a right to carry out, and as will be noted elsewhere in this book, the confluence of circumstances that warrants the shooting of a fleeing felon is extremely rare. (Remember that there are usually more earwitnesses than eyewitnesses; sound generally travels farther than line of sight, especially in the dark. Remember the infamous case of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered as 38 New York witnesses supposedly watched and did nothing. A study of the incident shows that only two of those witnesses actually saw the knife go into her body. However, more than 38 apparently heard her scream, “He stabbed me!”)
  7. Even if there are no witnesses and the man claims you shot at him and missed, evidence will show that you did fire your gun. If he claims you attempted to murder him, it’s his word against yours.
  8. Murphy’s law is immutable: if your weapon is going to jam, expect it to jam on the warning shot, and leave you helpless when the opponent comes up on you with his gun.
  9. The firing of a gun even in the “general direction” of another person is an act of deadly force. If deadly force was warranted, well, “warning shot, hell!” You would have shot directly at him. The warning shot can tell judge and jury that the very fact that you didn’t aim the shot at him is a tacit admission that even by your own lights, you knew deadly force was not justified at the time you fired the shot.
  10. If the man turns on you in the next moment and you do have to shoot him or die, you’ve wasted precious ammunition. With the still-popular five-shot revolver, you’ve just thrown away 20% of your potentially life-saving firepower. In one case in the Philippines, a man went berserk in a crowded open-air market and began stabbing and slashing people with a knife in each hand. In a nearby home, an off-duty Filipino police officer heard the screams, grabbed his six-shot service revolver (with no spare ammunition), and ran to the scene. When he confronted the madman, the latter turned on him. The officer fired three warning shots into the air, sending half of all he had to protect himself and the public into the stratosphere. He turned and ran, trying to shoot over his shoulder, and missed with his last three shots. He tripped and fell, and the pursuing knife-wielder literally ripped him apart. Responding officers shot and killed the madman, but their off-duty brother was already dead by then.

Massad Ayoob

Massad Ayoob is one of the world’s outstanding handgunners and is the Director of Massad Ayoob Group. A prolific author, Ayoob is the author of Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry, Gun Digest Book of SIG-Sauer, Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, Massad Ayoob’s Greatest Handguns of the World and many other books and more than one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues.

 

Source of Above Article: https://gundigest.com/article/self-defense-warning-shots-good-idea