When would you fire warning shots?

[farronwolf]

I am going to go against the grain here a bit. In a SD situation at home, my office or out in public in town I will not fire any warning shots.

However, there are instances where I would. Example, at deer camp we have had a lot of stuff come up missing (stolen). From game cameras, deer stands, wiring, battery bank, you name it, if it was of value they have pretty much helped themselves to it. They are clearly tresspassing, have cut fence and are entering property which they are clearly not supposed to be on.

Now if I happen to go through the locked gate some time and I see a 4 wheeler heading towards the place where they like to enter the property, I seriously might take some "warning shots" depending on the exact circumstances. I would not have to worry about hitting innocents, or whether I could call back the bullet or any of that type of thing. I have zero tolerance for folks who help themselves to others property.

So I can't say that there is never a time when warning shots would not be used by me. If you disagree, that's your call, but I know the layout of this area, and the history of folks who frequent it illegally. "Warning" them would definately be in order in my view.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Thunder71]

Never... my only warning shot would be an unintentional miss.

[Hiram25]

NEVER!

[ksholder]

I would only fire a warning shot if there were multiple perps. The second and following perps are warned when I shoot the first perp.

[dukalmighty]

Never. If you draw, be prepared to shoot. If you shoot, shoot to kill
/Thread

You shoot to stop the threat,even tho your shooting COM and that round may end somebodys life to say your shooting to kill if you ever get caught up in a SD shooting that post may come back to haunt you,not all DA's are on the side of using deadly force for self defense,they can come out and say,so your first shot struck him in the chest,but you kept shooting because your intent was to kill,not just stop the threat

[Oaklands]

I'll have to agree with everyone else. If I pull it, I am ready to use it. My first warning shot would be right at the BG and if he is still standing a safe distance away, I would give him the courtesy to ask, "Do you want some more, as that was my last warning." If he his still coming he gets another warning shot fired AT him.

[cj]

Never. There might be a situation where I might intentionally not hit an aggressor, but I WOULD be hitting something safe, and the intended purpose of the shot would be to deter with the sound of the shot...that's for deep back country hiking situations where an animal is threatening/attacking.

[JD]

In the military a warning shot may be authorized as part of continuation of force protocol. Possibly the same for law enforcement but IMHO in civilian life they have no place.

Sent via Tapatalk...and still using real words.

[limatunes]

I've posted on this before, but I dont remember all my examples. I know that one was if someone had grabbed a child and was running off with it and I couldnt catch up, in that case I might make a carefully aimed warning shot. I might do so at a dog, esp. if I believed the owner was the guilty party.

If someone was clearly mentally ill or impaired and was outside of the 22 foot mark, maybe but I'd be prepared to immediately follow up with an aimed response.

Truthfully, I dont go out of my way to think up these examples because I certainly dont want it to be my mindset. I also believe warning shots are generally a bad idea.

But I'm also a believer in 'never say never.' Esp. when lives are involved.

In all three of the scenarios you mentioned I'm getting a strong vibe that you would not be willing to shoot the actual threatening presence.

1. You wouldn't shoot someone with a child because perhaps because you fear hitting the child.

2. You wouldn't want to shoot a dog for its master's error.

3. You wouldn't want to shoot someone who was mentally ill or impaired.

If I'm incorrect in any of my conclusions, please let me know.

You stated you would be willing to consider a warning shot for these scenarios but I'm curious as to why you would bring a gun into a scenario at all if you were hesitant to use it against the object of threat?

First scenario: Man kidnapping a child? If you are unwilling to shoot someone fleeing with a child a gun should not enter the equation at all. The possibilities of something going wrong are far too great. You trip.. your warning shot ricochets.. he makes an unexpected move into the path of your warning shot.. he stumbles out of surprise or changes course into dangerous traffic because of the warning shot.. he decides to throw the child.. your well-aimed warning shot is not as well-aimed as you thought and you end up hitting something you did not intent... way too much can go wrong bringing a gun into a kidnapping situation that you aren't sure your ready/willing to use against the kidnapper.

For my own child? Yes. I would draw and I would shoot AT THE KIDNAPPER. I would accept the consequences for that action. For someone else's child? No way. Not that I am not willing but they may not be so understanding if their child was injured in the gunfire. Therefore, no gun would enter the equation at all and no shots (warning or otherwise) would be fired. As stated.. far too much could go horribly wrong bringing a gun into a scenario (ANY scenario) where it was not willing to be used immediately and ONLY AGAINST the threat.

In scenario #2... either the dog is a lethal threat or he isn't. Either you have to shoot him or you don't. I'm not sure how the owner would change how you perceived the level of threat to your own self. Can you explain?

#3.. Again, why would you be bringing a gun into a scenario where you weren't sure whether or not your life was in jeopardy or not? If someone is outside of a distance you consider to be dangerous and acting mentally unstable, why is a gun entering the equation? If he's threatening you does he have the ability and opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm? Do you feel your life is in jeopardy? If not, a gun should not be entering the equation and a warning shot should be out of the questions.. again.. too much can go wrong and if someone is there to witness this exchange you could very well be charged with a variety of charges depending on your local laws up to and including assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing and more.

I'm very curious as to your thoughts on the legalities of the scenarios your expressed you would consider using a warning shot for and how the outcome might be both legally and practically.

[Cattus Vir]

NEVER. If I feel the need to ever draw my weapon I have already made the decision that I MAY have to use it. Please note I said may have to use not have already decided to fire.

[9MMare]

If your gun is out in your hand, it has to be (legally and via common sense) your life is in danger.

.

This isnt true, esp. in your own state. You are allowed to protecdt property and livestock. And to use it against the commission of a felony, even being committed against someone else. (The last one applies in my state, possibly not in TX)

[9MMare]

In all three of the scenarios you mentioned I'm getting a strong vibe that you would not be willing to shoot the actual threatening presence.

1. You wouldn't shoot someone with a child because perhaps because you fear hitting the child.

2. You wouldn't want to shoot a dog for its master's error.

3. You wouldn't want to shoot someone who was mentally ill or impaired.

If I'm incorrect in any of my conclusions, please let me know.

You stated you would be willing to consider a warning shot for these scenarios but I'm curious as to why you would bring a gun into a scenario at all if you were hesitant to use it against the object of threat?

First scenario: Man kidnapping a child? If you are unwilling to shoot someone fleeing with a child a gun should not enter the equation at all. The possibilities of something going wrong are far too great. You trip.. your warning shot ricochets.. he makes an unexpected move into the path of your warning shot.. he stumbles out of surprise or changes course into dangerous traffic because of the warning shot.. he decides to throw the child.. your well-aimed warning shot is not as well-aimed as you thought and you end up hitting something you did not intent... way too much can go wrong bringing a gun into a kidnapping situation that you aren't sure your ready/willing to use against the kidnapper.

The gun is with me, most of the time. I cant catch the person running with the kid. I have no other options. And you're right, no way would I attempt to shoot someone holding a kid. A warning shot is an attempt to scare kidnapper into dropping kid, into thinking I mean it. No one says it would work. I'd certainly hope someone would do everything possible if it were my kid.

.

In scenario #2... either the dog is a lethal threat or he isn't. Either you have to shoot him or you don't. I'm not sure how the owner would change how you perceived the level of threat to your own self. Can you explain?

[B]I can read dogs and I will do so. My judgement, my life or my dogs. Depends on time and distance and dog's actual attitude. I dont care to punish animals for their owner's misdeeds. If I have options, I will take them. That's why I carry pepper spray and have used it in the same situation. I'm alot safer if I try a warning shot...or an actual shot, than risking myself with pepper spray, but that was my choice.[/B]

#3.. Again, why would you be bringing a gun into a scenario where you weren't sure whether or not your life was in jeopardy or not? If someone is outside of a distance you consider to be dangerous and acting mentally unstable, why is a gun entering the equation? If he's threatening you does he have the ability and opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm? Do you feel your life is in jeopardy? If not, a gun should not be entering the equation and a warning shot should be out of the questions.. again.. too much can go wrong and if someone is there to witness this exchange you could very well be charged with a variety of charges depending on your local laws up to and including assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing and more.

In this scenario I would be retreating. If no retreat was possible and I had time/distance, I might choose a warning shot. That extreme, abrupt noise can disrupt alot of hysteria/fuge states/panic, etc. Or make it worse. I know of a case here in WA St where a naked mentally ill man killed a cop with his own gun, so I am not minimizing the risks. I hold the decision to take another's live extremely seriously.

I'm very curious as to your thoughts on the legalities of the scenarios your expressed you would consider using a warning shot for and how the outcome might be both legally and practically.

Legally, I'd let the chips fall where they may. If I end up killing the person or dog anyway, then it goes in my favor as mercy and not really wanting to kill.

I'm in for way less legal hassles if I dont kill the person or dog. And I edited my original post to say that a warning shot does not mean it's not a deliberately placed shot.

[sgb]

My question is when, if ever, would you fire a warning shot?

NEVER!

[ISR MATRIX]

As an LEO, we are instructed to never fire warning shots for a couple of different reasons...

* We may need that round.

* We are responsible for where the round goes and the damage it may cause.

* At the time we decide to pull the trigger, we are committing to the use of force that is likely to result in the death or serious bodily injury/ permanent physical difigurement of someone. We don't want to muddy that decision in retrospect by reducing the gun to a high decibel "attention getter". In an incident that will be later picked apart by people who don't understand use of force, self defense or the realities of gun ballistics, we want to minimize the amount of free association and "coulda, shoulda, woulda".

[MitchellCT]

If someone was clearly mentally ill or impaired and was outside of the 22 foot mark, maybe but I'd be prepared to immediately follow up with an aimed response.

Well...Looks like someone's been misunderstanding the Tuller Drill.

The Police Policy Studies Council

We have done some testing along those lines recently and have found that an average healthy adult male can cover the traditional seven yard distance in a time of (you guessed it) about one and one-half seconds. It would be safe to say then that an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone.


7 yards is NOT a line seperating you from danger - its a drill which justifies you shooting someone at that distance or possibly further if they are armed with an edged weapon.