PDA

View Full Version : Warning Shots..Good or Bad idea?


NukeCop
August 27, 2008, 05:06 AM
So who thinks a warning shot is a good/necessary thing to do? Any LEO's/CCW permit holder wanna weigh in on this?

I'm bringing it up because where I'm currently at, mandates the use of warning shots unless hostilities are already in progress. Also, when we have to shoot, the Regulation reads, "with intent to disable, never to kill"... It goes so far as to aim anywhere other then the head/heart... :(

Sigma 40 Blaster
August 27, 2008, 05:44 AM
I was taught to give a short verbal warning (stop, don't move, drop it...two words or less). I was also taught that a CCW holder is responsible for every round that they fire, once a bullet is fired nothing can be done to bring it back.

If the definition of warning shot is to intentionally miss the target then I have to say it's a bad idea for a lot of reasons, namely because you cannot control where that stray round goes. Also from my experience if your first shot is bad following it up with a good shot is more difficult and takes more time to adjust your aim.

BUT in all fairness if it reads "unless hostilities are already in progress" I wouldn't worry about it too terribly much, most states do not allow you to draw your weapon and fire unless something bad is already happening or imminent. Just my opinions, I'd look more into the already in progress clause and clarify it's definition and intent with a CCW trainer or the local authorities.

AirForceShooter
August 27, 2008, 05:46 AM
NEVER, EVER, fire a warning shot.
You'll loose any defense that you were in fear of your life.

I'm an old guy. We were taught "if you pull it you shoot it."
No warnings at all. EVER.

AFS

kraigwy
August 27, 2008, 09:35 AM
No warning shots, EVER.

You want to warn the bad guy, get a crimsen lasor sight and put the red dot on his forhead.

The theory of warning shots was to stop someone who is running away (a theory I never subscribed too and was against our dept policy). In a self defence situation, there is NO justification shooting at a subject that is running away.

The whole ideal of a pistol (or other firearm) in self defence, is Protection and to stop the bad guy from his illegal activitiy. If he's running away then you have accomplished that goal.

NO WARNING SHOTS WHAT SO EVER

OuTcAsT
August 27, 2008, 09:37 AM
I'm bringing it up because where I'm currently at, mandates the use of warning shots unless hostilities are already in progress. Also, when we have to shoot, the Regulation reads, "with intent to disable, never to kill"... It goes so far as to aim anywhere other then the head/heart.

just Curious, are these rules mandated for your state's CCW or rules for your job ? :confused:

Brian Pfleuger
August 27, 2008, 09:57 AM
[¶12] Section 12.1-05-03, N.D.C.C., provides:

Self-defense. A person is justified in using force upon another person to defend himself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by such other person, except that :
1. A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest, execution of process, or other performance of duty by a public servant under color of law, but excessive force may be resisted.
2. A person is not justified in using force if:

a. He intentionally provokes unlawful action by another person to cause bodily injury or death to such other person; or
b. He has entered into a mutual combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless he is resisting force which is clearly excessive in the circumstances. A person's use of defensive force after he withdraws from an encounter and indicates to the other person that he has done so is justified if the latter nevertheless continues or menaces unlawful action.

Brian Pfleuger
August 27, 2008, 10:07 AM
As far as I can tell the duty to not kill some one only applies to the defense of property in North Dakota. The state is currently considering a "Stand Your Ground" law. It appears to me that the rules for SD are about the same as other areas, fire until the threat is stopped.

hoytinak
August 27, 2008, 10:29 AM
The only way I would use a warning shot was if there were two threats, ie. shooting one of the threats would be the other one's warning shot. ;)

zxcvbob
August 27, 2008, 10:31 AM
A *really* bad idea if you're carrying a single-shot :rolleyes:

dipper
August 27, 2008, 10:39 AM
There is no such thing as a "warning shot"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hockeysew
August 27, 2008, 10:53 AM
I know of two people that fired "Warning Shots".
Both were charged with brandishing and unlawful discharge of a firearm and both lost their CCW. They figured each shot cost them about $10K in legal fees.
Bad idea to be sure.

chrisp0410
August 27, 2008, 01:08 PM
In addition to the aforementioned concerns of being accountible for each shot fired, risk of injury to bystanders, etc. another thing to keep in mind is that firing a warning shot decreases your defensive payload by one round. In a glock-o-matic, you may feel one shot less isn't significant, however think about how much you would want that warning shot back the moment your slide locks back with an enpty gun. In a J-frame revolver, that warning shor deplinishes your payload by 20%.

It just doesn't make sence. The only notable exception for me would be the use of firing a warning shot accross the bow in a potential naval engagement.

Chrisp0410

Dewhitewolf
August 27, 2008, 01:10 PM
In New Jersey, the Attorney General's directives for police and retired police qualifications on the use of force specifically prohibit warning shots. The reason included with the directive is that there is no evidence to support a theory that a warning shot will stop anyone. In addition, firing a weapon causes a potential danger to bystanders because of the inability to control rounds once fired.

From a legal perspective, the law prefers that you not fire the weapon at all. Firing the weapon, even as a warning shot, opens the door for a prosecutor or plaintiff to suggest to the court that you were overzealous and eager to use deadly force.

IMO, leave warning shots to TJ Hooker, along with shooting suspects in the leg or arm to stop them, and the fancy shots where you shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand!

Recon7
August 27, 2008, 01:29 PM
Who do you work for?

imho you should really consider quitting.

This sounds like a place that will throw you overboard if you respond reasonably to a lethal force encounter. they would probably testify in court that you failed to follow company policy and try to take blame off themselves and place it on you.

"Sue him, not us. He broke company policy"

And if you do follow company policy... read all them other posts.

M1911
August 27, 2008, 01:35 PM
Warning shots are almost always a bad idea. You are responsible for the final resting place of each and every shot you ever fire. That shot you fire up in the air will come down somewhere. That shot you fire into the ground may ricochet. So you greatly risk hitting an innocent with your "warning shot."

Furthermore, you may well need that shot later.

If you are not justified in using deadly force, then you shouldn't shoot. If you are justified in using deadly force, you should shoot at the upper center of the chest, with a secondary target of the head if shots at the chest don't stop the attack.

NukeCop
August 27, 2008, 01:44 PM
Sorry, I'm currently on a host nation air base.... Not in North Dakota...
And its rules for my job. They mandate 2 shots, 1 by their head, thena verbal warning, then another shot in the vicinity of their feet.... :eek:

Recon7
August 27, 2008, 01:50 PM
center mass is within 1' of head and 4' of feet :D

M1911
August 27, 2008, 02:00 PM
And its rules for my job. They mandate 2 shots, 1 by their head, thena verbal warning, then another shot in the vicinity of their feetSounds like a good way to die.

Hornett
August 27, 2008, 02:17 PM
Let's try to think like an armed bad guy and a bullet whizzes past his head.
The bad guy can only assume that the shooter is trying to kill him and just missed doing so.
Potentially, the bad guy will never hear the verbal warning because he is emptying his magazine at the com of the poor sap that fired the "warning shot".

If you are stationed somewhere that has an unarmed population, then maybe it would work. But, if not, I agree with M1911.
Sounds like a good way to die.

OuTcAsT
August 27, 2008, 02:56 PM
Sorry, I'm currently on a host nation air base.... Not in North Dakota...
And its rules for my job. They mandate 2 shots, 1 by their head, thena verbal warning, then another shot in the vicinity of their feet.

Thanks, that clears it up a bit, If those are the ROE then I guess you don't have much choice (as asinine as they are)

All of the aforementioned reasons against a warning shot are valid,IMHO.

But,
This sounds like a place that will throw you overboard if you respond reasonably to a lethal force encounter. they would probably testify in court that you failed to follow company policy and try to take blame off themselves and place it on you.


If it's .gov then you can almost count on it !

imho you should really consider quitting.

Sage Advice !

#20fan
August 27, 2008, 03:18 PM
And its rules for my job.
What's the next step? Shoot them in the leg or arm?

Sounds like a private contracted post?
If that is indeed the "rules" then you have no choice in the matter. You have to follow them as long as you wish to be employed by that Co. If it's just something you heard check with your Legal Dept.
I was taught that warning shots are bad on so many levels.
Illegal, liabilities are off the chart, sends a message to the BG that you are not serious about shooting him, you are not actually in fear for your life.
We all need to thank Hollywood for the idea that you can use warning shots or just wound them.

Edward429451
August 27, 2008, 03:30 PM
C'mon guys, hey was being facetious. One by (to) the head, warning as he falls, another shot in the area of his feet (he fell backwards).:D

I seen the humor in it.

I gave a dog a warning shot once, in the grass infront of him as he charged. It worked great and turned him right around. But dogs you can reason with unlike most humans...

I'm not positive that I agree with the doctrine of if you draw you shoot. What if they see your drawing motion and cease hostilities? Happened to me once, drew to low ready and it was over with no shots fired. You may not have time to see him cease being hostile in his body language, and in that case I guess he gets shot. But I had time to see and am very glad I didn't have to shoot. Critique this as you will.

Tombstonejim
August 27, 2008, 03:44 PM
We had that warning shot nonsense when I was in Korea. We had to say three times in Korean "Stop or I will shoot" and fire one warning shot. We used to practice at guard mount saying what ever the phrase was as fast as it could be said and firing a warning shot. It was something like gobbled gook, gobbled gook, gobbled gook, bang, bang. The second bang is the for real shot.

NAKing
August 27, 2008, 04:43 PM
Can you believe that? I'm shocked we win wars with rules of engagement so suicidal. :barf:

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm more of a target guy (not so much self defense), but I don't think I would give a warning shot. Any bullet that comes out of my weapon is either intended to hit a target at a range or center mass of an attacker at home. What would I shoot at for the warning shot? Shooting in the air is dangerous. What if I hit an innocent person? I can't see anything good coming from a warning shot.

David Armstrong
August 27, 2008, 04:53 PM
I'm bringing it up because where I'm currently at, mandates the use of warning shots unless hostilities are already in progress.
When standing fixed guard posts, particularly in military settings, the use of a warning shot has long been practiced without too much trouble. I certainly don't promote the idea, but I also don't see it as much of an issue given the situation. The bright side is that they apparently let you stand post with a loaded weapon, which is better than some.

Nnobby45
August 27, 2008, 04:58 PM
.......... Also, when we have to shoot, the Regulation reads, "with intent to disable, never to kill"... It goes so far as to aim anywhere other then the head/heart...

Are you sure you're not working security in Denver? That would be like a host nation with all those libs in town.

OK, sorry, must be the Red Bull again:D
However:

There's obviously some confusion, since much of the boards advice (NO Warning shots) seems to address US laws applicable to SD situations for citizens.

Since you are neither in the USA nor covered by US laws, then let us in on the facts, since you started the thread.

Are your rules applicable to rioters, guard duty situations where sabotage may be a problem, kids throwing rocks, protests? Out with it, my man!:cool:

Recon7
August 27, 2008, 05:30 PM
In my travels abroad I was taught the 5 S. Shout Show Shove Shoot (warning) Shoot (for reals) Of course you can always skip to the appropriate step if necessary.

1 Shout_____STOP!!!
2 Show_____ point gun at them
3 Shove_____Use nonlethal here if possible, like a size 12 boot
4 Shoot_____warning shot
5 Shoot_____center mass


ROE is a major PITA overseas. There are laws everywhere, the OP has to answer to either UCMJ or the host nation. Many here know only the laws of their state, but it ain't that different overseas. Unfortunately :mad:

Pat-inCO
August 27, 2008, 08:11 PM
So who thinks a warning shot is a good/necessary thing to do?

Absolutely the BEST thing you can do!










Especially if you want to spend extended periods of time in jail,
be sued,
have your permit pulled
and have to spend hours explaining to some really MAD Cops why you did such a stupid thing.

Stevie-Ray
August 27, 2008, 08:19 PM
No warning shots, EVER.+1 If I ever have to shoot twice to stop, then he can consider the first one a warning if he wishes, but other than that...........

KChen986
August 27, 2008, 08:31 PM
I believe for the civilian population, a stray warning shot that kills someone can result in 2nd Degree Murder charges. Not to mention wrongful death liabilities and other tort suits...

DON'T DO IT.

Borch
August 27, 2008, 08:40 PM
My brother and I have had this conversation a couple of times and we both agree; never in a million years would we fire our weapons unless they were pointed center mass. Every round that leaves your weapon has a lawyer attached to it so you better be dam sure you know where it's going and what it's doing.

Threefeathers
August 27, 2008, 10:57 PM
Absolutely not. Ayoob discusses why in The Gravest Extreme and other books.

Hook686
August 28, 2008, 03:22 AM
Bad

Sparks2112
August 28, 2008, 08:34 AM
+1 Bad.

ROE's suck sometimes though :mad:

besafe2
August 28, 2008, 10:44 AM
When I first became a police officer in the 70's we were told "there is no such thing as a warning shot".

Erik
August 29, 2008, 08:35 AM
Another "warning shots are a bad idea" advocate. The exceptions are few enough and far enough in between the lines of the debate so as to be of no practical consequence.

NukeCop
August 29, 2008, 12:34 PM
rules applicable to rioters, guard duty situations where sabotage may be a problem, kids throwing rocks, protests? Out with it, my man!

Well, I'm an Air Force cop... Unless we're being shot at, we HAVE to use 2 warning shots. Protests, and rioters have been dealt with twice since I've been here. They (the TuAF) have us retreat, then handle it the best they can. Never have had hostilities that required a shoot scenario here, so we haven't had to put the rule to the test.

A lot of us know its a terrible idea to fire warning shots, but we will be held accountable by host nation courts for failure to comply... :barf:

bikerbill
August 29, 2008, 12:45 PM
I would never fire a warning shot for any reason ... if my gun is in my hand, it means that I'm in dire circumstances, my life is threatened, and it's time for me to protect it ... that doesn't mean every draw ends with a shot fired; it just means that I'm ready to fire the shot if I need to ... we have all heard the stats; thousands of crimes avoided every year when the BG simply SEES a gun in the hand of his intended victim, and I'd hope any confrontation I was in would end that way. But if I have to draw, it's for a reason ... the BG can see the gun, he doesn't need to hear it; he'll hear it soon enough if he doesn't step off ...

I sure sympathize with the OP; what preposterous rules to have to work with ...

Wuchak
August 29, 2008, 01:18 PM
+1 on it being a bad idea.

I think your out is in the part of the policy that says, "unless hostilities are already in progress"

Unless hostilities are already in progress you wouldn't even have had to pull your gun. Obviously the situation had already degraded enough that there was no time for a warning shot.

Following that company policy will get you killed. Not following it might get you fired. Which would you rather be?

funon1
August 29, 2008, 01:37 PM
For civilians, they are a bad idea, in general. If you are not a Trooper on patrol, fire only when you or those you are authorized to protect, are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. In such a case, a warning shot is not necessary nor prudent, IMHO.

Funon1

AR-15 Rep
August 29, 2008, 01:53 PM
Bad Idea, first you just told them that more force ( on the BG end ) is necessary, second, you gave away your position, and now they have time to pull on you and start shooting. Thats my nickles ( inflation ) worth anyway

chris in va
August 29, 2008, 03:23 PM
C'mon guys. "NEVER use a warning shot". :rolleyes:

Depends where you're at. My Dad's neighbor in Texas got accosted by a group of guys at his house. They were making threats and gesturing with tire irons, etc, working their way to his front yard. He pulled his 1911 and shot into the dirt, then pointed it at them. They took off like scalded cats. Dad witnessed the whole thing.

The police arrived about 5 minutes later. Officer took notes, then stated "you did good, glad that's all it took". No charges filed, nothing.

So you simply cannot make a blanket statement that warning shots are always a bad idea. I have other stories to back this up.

Now here's a question. Fight breaks out, several individuals are beating the snot out of one person on the ground, perhaps with bats and boots. Lethal force is justified (in VA anyway) to prevent "grave bodily injury" to a third party. Lots of yelling and screaming. If you start yelling as well, it probably won't be heard. You don't necessarily want to start shooting, but get the message across you will if needed. Then what?

Glenn E. Meyer
August 29, 2008, 03:45 PM
The risk of the warning shot is that it might go to the wrong place.

That's why we need the all purpose gun-o-phonics.

The gun-o-phonics makes the following sound effects quite loudly and fits on your belt:

1. Shotgun racking
2. The warning shot
3. The police siren in the distance.
4. Make my day - Clint
5. Fill your hands, you sonofabitch - John Wayne
6. Please don't hurt me
7. Or you could record other sounds of your choice.

Rant Casey
August 29, 2008, 04:10 PM
The only warning shot i've ever fired was 40mm and smoke and that's only because it's what the ROE dictated. If it were up to me, if a group of men standing with m16s and m4s isn't enough warning, you're up to no good. That being said I simply can't imagine an instance where a warning shot would be justified. A mob of people intent on killing you? I'll fire 3 or so warning shots into four seperate people, then reload and see if I need to give anymore warning . I'm not about to try and waste ammo or my time by shooting pavement. All a warning shot is going to do is escalate the situation. If you're not justified to shoot, then don't shoot at all.

David Armstrong
August 29, 2008, 05:18 PM
So you simply cannot make a blanket statement that warning shots are always a bad idea. I have other stories to back this up.
You're not alone. Plenty of evidence, historical and recent, indicates the the warning shot has worked well on numerous instances. I've used them twice to great success, and my father has once. again, I don't recommend it as a normal course of action, but it is a tool in the box that might be just what you need sometimes.

James K
August 31, 2008, 07:27 PM
A warning shot has two purposes - to stop a person who may or may not be intent on doing you harm or to effect an arrest.

For CCW, the second is out. You are not authorized to make an arrest, so any shot you fire must be in defense of yourself or (depending on the law) another innocent person.

A warning shot to stop is also problematical for a CCW. In most cases of armed attack outside the home, wasting time on a warning shot would be pointless and possibly dangerous. In the home, you don't need a CCW but are not really authorized to fire to warn someone who is outside your home. If he has broken in or is attempting to break in, you again would waste time warning, as he has already made clear his intention to invade your home and by implication, do you injury if necessary to achieve his goals.

Jim

delzo
August 31, 2008, 08:23 PM
Warning shot? I don't THINK so.

A bullet costs about 15 cents. After it is fired the price goes up to about a million bucks and there are 6 lawyers sitting around waiting for it to land.

The Canuck
August 31, 2008, 10:49 PM
In all of my training I have been told to get off the "X" yell "STOP!" in an authoratative voice and if they fail to comply, I stop them. No warning shots. EVERY BULLET HAS A LAWYER ATTACHED TO IT. Sorry for yelling, but its that important.

legalhack
September 1, 2008, 01:00 PM
NukeCop - go back and reread your AFI; (I don't have a copy at home) but they do NOT mandate warning shots. Warning shots - by definition - are the "use of deadly force" (means likely to inflict grievous bodily injury). I'm not a big fan of them (they tend to quickly destabilize an already unstable situation, but they have their uses).

The law of war is NOT a suicide pact. ALL Fed Circuits allow deadly force without mandating "warning shots" if the situation so warrants it; all services allow you to go immediately to deadly force if needed. You either have a risk-averse Commander; or an attorney who doesn't know what the heck they are talking about.

Look at your AFI; the SROE//RUF; and the Chairman's instruction - you are getting some bad poop.

HiBC
September 1, 2008, 09:45 PM
Texas has different rules than the other states.
My opinion doesn't matter much,but I think it is a legal mistake to consider a deadly weapon an instrument of power to control the bad behavior of others and restore order(warning shot) "I got a gun so you better be nice,oh,you don't believe me bang now you better be nice" That is controlling.
I think the legal use(in most cases) deadly force is for when someone is in the process of killing you and you save your life.

CPTMurdoc30
September 1, 2008, 10:05 PM
BAD GUY: Giveme yo money BIATCH

MILITARY COP: HALT or I will fire a WARNING SHOT

BAD GUY: GO ahead ******

MILITARY COP: BANG SH($ I missed and hit him in the head with my warning shot How the Hell am I going to explaine that one to the Sarge?


Shooting towards someone's head is a good way to hit them in the head is it not? So what happens if said bad guy zigs when he should have zaged and you tag him in the grape? How do you explaine that one to the Host Nation?

.300H&H
September 1, 2008, 11:38 PM
A warning shot can be a bad habit ie. it's something one shouldn't be conditioned to do...BUT never say never ie. there's situations where it
might do more good than harm.

Anecdotal: I knew a lady who was at home when she heard a local thug<bad neighborhood>beating up on one of her young teenage sons. She came out of the house and saw the thug on top of her son<no clear shot> in their yard... She yelled for the thug to get off her son...and there was no response. She then pulled out her .380 and fired a warning shot into the air above... She got everybody's attention. The thug turned on her and pulled out a knife. She shot the thug in the arm, and he ran off...and he was later apprehended.


Anecdotal: Waaaaay out in the country far from a quick police response, a gentleman heard something out in his yard in the weeee hours of the dark morning... Lo and Behold somebody was messing with his car - stealing it?
Rather than go out and confront the stranger, and not wanting to watch his car get stolen or otherwise diminished, he decided to take out his 12ga. shotgun and do a little shooting at the moon through an open upstairs window. The stranger ran off.

tvrobert
October 29, 2008, 07:33 PM
Here's a good reason (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1028081mccain1.html) why warning shots are a bad idea. Despite being just plain ignorant, the shooting puts responsible gun owners in a bad light. Not helpful.

For the record, it does not matter whose sign was in the yard. The 1st amenedment is just as important as the 2nd. Both are freedoms I want to keep and will die for if needed.

Recon7
October 29, 2008, 07:42 PM
not a very relevant example when we are talking about SD also the thread is about 2 months old.

tvrobert
October 29, 2008, 07:50 PM
not a very relevant example when we are talking about SD also the thread is about 2 months old.

Fair enough. I did a search for "warning shots" and this thread came up. I didn't want to start a new thread. No reason to give such an idiot any undue prominence.

Tuckahoe
October 29, 2008, 08:21 PM
If you do not believe someone is a threat you shouldn't have a gun in your hand to start with. If the person is a threat and your life is in danger all shots should be directed at that person to stop the threat.

onthejon55
October 29, 2008, 09:13 PM
The only warning shot ill ever give a BG is an unintentional miss and you better bet the follow up shot is gonna hit the mark

armedandsafe
October 29, 2008, 09:34 PM
A couple of paragraphs from my training manual:

"Pull your gun ONLY if you feel you or someone else is on mortal danger. Then shoot if the danger does not stop immediately."

"Take note that you are to shoot only to stop whatever is endangering you. The ground in front of you is not endangering you. The air above you is not endangering you. Don't shoot them. Shoot the danger, to stop the danger."

Pops

BuckHammer
October 29, 2008, 09:46 PM
If you're gonna fire a warning shot, you might as well just yell, "Hey I'm over here, SHOOT ME!!!" Also, it displays what might be interpreted as an unwillingness to kill, which the BG can only use as leverage against you. No matter how willing you are to kill, a warning shot is an all around bad idea.

Another note on this. discharging a firearm is no small thing. When you pull the trigger, it must be to do something. Firing a warning shot can be a reckless endangerment of those around you. The typical warning shot is into the air, and bullets do in fact, come down. Even if you shoot into the ground, warning shots are still a bad idea.

easyG
October 30, 2008, 09:29 AM
If I feel that the situation is such that I need to draw my pistol, then the bad guy only gets one verbal warning.

And maybe not even that depending on the situation.

One308
October 30, 2008, 01:48 PM
If you are scared or theatened enough to unholster it,make it count.If you are dealing with issues on taking said persons life,leave your weapon at home.

JasonG
October 30, 2008, 02:17 PM
Warning shots violate:
Rule # 2
Don't point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy.
Rule #4
Be aware of your target and what's beyond.
And maybe
Rule #3
Keep your finger off the trigger..........
What target would your sights be on??

M1911
October 30, 2008, 03:06 PM
Warning shots also throw away a round that you might need.

GHF
October 30, 2008, 03:08 PM
Here they are illegal.

Tactically, if you have an established threat of death and/or serious bodily injury, you should be firing to stop the threat as soon as possible. The BG does not deserve any warning, as look as they are on the Dark Side of the Threat Line.

KUHIO
October 30, 2008, 03:39 PM
Warning shots are perfectly fine when directed into the assailant's chest. :p

freakintoguns
October 30, 2008, 03:56 PM
my warnign shot: .45 hollowpoint to the chest. that doesnt work? hollowpoint to the brain. god forbid i ever have to sdo that , but if i have to i will. if im at home then its 12 gauge deer slugs

computerguysd
October 30, 2008, 04:20 PM
I just finished reading the North Dakota code, section 62.1 & I don't see anything pertaining to firing a warning shot. The section I read was updated in 2007.

Huntergirl
October 30, 2008, 05:02 PM
NO No NO. Once its drawn and the threat continues, 2 to the chest 1 to the head. Stop the threat.

Scattergun Bob
October 30, 2008, 06:12 PM
Remember folks that the OP is stating he is operating under rules of engagement in a foreign land.

Revisiting Dave's post, THE GOOD news is that the OP is allowed a LOADED weapon, many times in many places guard duty is stood with a unloaded weapon.

Warning shots are or aren't the plan of the day depending on the commanding officer. Violate the plan and suffer the Uniform Code of Military Toughness!!!! This isn't Kansas, Dorothy.

Stay safe and keep a low profile

nra_guns_winner
October 31, 2008, 08:24 AM
Warning shot? Well I say if someone is in my house other than me, and I felt a threat from them due to the current activity in my home I'd get a visual and drop him. If I was in line at the grocery store during a hold up, I'd give the robber my attention but not unload on him until the situation became real serious. Warning shots are just not a good idea. My warning shot would probably be a gut shot instead of a head shot.

OldMarksman
October 31, 2008, 09:58 AM
From NukeCop: So who thinks a warning shot is a good/necessary thing to do? Any LEO's/CCW permit holder wanna weigh in on this?

First, as has been discussed, the answer is likely to be very different for a U. S serviceman on a CONUS or foreign base than for a person in a personal defense situation within or outside of the home.

Second, it is very likely that only some CCW holders are really qualified to offer a really meaningful opinion: primarily, those who are attorneys, and even then, probably only for their states or municipal areas.

As previously stated there's probably no single answer.

But: two themes in the replies so far seem rather persuasive to me:


There is great potential liability inherent in the obvious risk of hitting someone. Massad Ayoob provides some real examples in a couple of his books.
The shot or shots deplete your resources.


In my CCW class, we were advised very strongly to never fire a warning shot--"you either have to use deadly force or you do not." I would suspect that where I live firing a warning shot would constitute the illegal discharge of a firearm, but I'm not sure about that.

There was a case in New Mexico some years ago where a person intended to fire a warning shot and hit an assailant. The prosecution claimed that because the hit was not intentional, she was not entitled to a self defense claim, and she was convicted of negligent homicide. The case was, as I understand it, overturned on appeal, and the defendant was granted a new trial. I do not know the ouctome.

In my lay opinion it may be more risky to fire a warning shot than to wait until deadly force cannot reasonably be avoided and to apply it accordingly.

However, that is worth just what you paid for it.

Would any of the qualified attorneys on the forum care to contribute?

hogdogs
October 31, 2008, 10:13 AM
Since the thread is at 3 pages and I never was bored enuff to entertain myself with it until now I am sure this has been said already... A warning shot is just a waste of fine ammo!
Brent

Conan1
November 12, 2008, 12:32 AM
Kentucky has the "Stand your ground law". I 'm definitely in fear of my life. Center body mass.

Hook686
November 12, 2008, 04:34 AM
2008-08-29, 11:34 AM #37

NukeCop wrote:



A lot of time has passed and you are under host country rules when on host country territory. When I was in the AF in the late 1960's I was on the 'Riot Control Unit'. After Kent State (students shot by guardsmen that had loaded weapons), the AF took ammunition away from the front line troops. We marched ('T-berry shuffle') in close line formation with fixed bayonets. A few guys with magazines were behind the front line and were designated 'Snipers'. These were the only guys with ammunition. If a real full blown riot developed, I think the situation would have sucked as bad as your orders to fire warning shots.

Odd that the AF would now issue ammunition to riot control troops. Are you in a designated war zone ?

foghornl
November 12, 2008, 02:51 PM
If you are in the Military, anywhere, yeah the "Rules Of Engagement" can be a major PITA. :mad: :mad:

That being said, when I am at home, my warning shot consists of the "Snick!" of the Fire Control Group being set to "Operate"

JohnH1963
November 12, 2008, 03:02 PM
What about shooting one of those shotgun shells designed to be a noisemaker?

Lets say you are in your house and hear activity downstairs. Instead of going to clear the house, why not fire a round into the air while in your bedroom with a set of earplugs on?

I know this would give away your position, but if I was a burglar and heard a shotgun go off then I would head for the door without question.

maxkimber
November 12, 2008, 03:20 PM
I'm bringing it up because where I'm currently at, mandates the use of warning shots unless hostilities are already in progress.

In this century, I have never seen anyplace that authorizes warning shots, or any century for that matter. Too many stories out there where people fire rounds into the sky and they kill or injure bystanders miles away. Your place of business is just waiting for a lawsuit.

You could always load one or two blanks, then always fire one or two warning shots - that would be absolutely acceptable.:rolleyes: Then why not just carry a cap gun?:D

Also, when we have to shoot, the Regulation reads, "with intent to disable, never to kill"... It goes so far as to aim anywhere other then the head/heart...

This one is almost correct... Should read always shoot to stop the action that caused you to use deadly force... Then your training records should indicate you were trained to aim center mass on any target, whether it be paper on the range or a person in the field. Center mass gives you the greatest possibility of hitting your target and not hitting any bystanders.

I always aim center mass...

Creature
November 12, 2008, 03:26 PM
What about shooting one of those shotgun shells designed to be a noisemaker?

Lets say you are in your house and hear activity downstairs. Instead of going to clear the house, why not fire a round into the air while in your bedroom with a set of earplugs on?

I know this would give away your position, but if I was a burglar and heard a shotgun go off then I would head for the door without question.

Well then why not just throw a brick of lit firecrackers...the buglar will think you have a machine gun! :D

http://digital-images.net/Images/2002/Potpourri2/ChineseFirecrackers_0598.jpg

OldMarksman
November 12, 2008, 03:48 PM
Lets say you are in your house and hear activity downstairs. Instead of going to clear the house, why not fire a round into the air while in your bedroom with a set of earplugs on? I know this would give away your position, but if I was a burglar and heard a shotgun go off then I would head for the door without question.

Or might you assume that the resident had just shot himself accidentally?

maxkimber
November 12, 2008, 04:33 PM
One question for all those who advocate warning shots:

From Wikipedia: "On the ground, a warning shot from a pistol, rifle, or shotgun is fired into the air, or occasionally into a nearby object, or aimed so that the shot passes the one being warned harmlessly. This is a sufficiently aggressive act to demand attention, and alert onlookers that they might be shot if directions are not followed."

Who is responsible for the round (warning shot) when it kills or seriously injures another completely oblivious person?

Answer: Whoever pulled the trigger (you).

Are you willing to except that responsibility to scare someone? If it warrants shooting a gun, shoot the threat. If it doesn't, hit the panic alarm on your car/home/etc., blow a whistle, scream, etc.

Or if you are dealing with someone in the military or law enforcement - just yell "Cease Fire.":eek::D

NukeCop
November 12, 2008, 07:46 PM
To answer Hook 686, the particular area is considered a gray area. I'm not disclosing a location for confidential reason. But yes, when LE and Force Protection is your AFSC, you carry live ammuniton.... Lots of it.

scorpion_tyr
November 13, 2008, 01:41 AM
I've seen reports of bullets ricochet off of everything from glass, brick, dirt, even water. It all depends on so many variables including speed, angel, air density, temperature, etc. The only thing I can think off that a round would not ricochet off of is a human body (maybe a skull). Warning shots are NEVER a good idea considering the legal effects of a stray round going somewhere it shouldn't. I would hate to think of firing a warning shot only to have it bounce off of something and strike me. Then the BG gets my money, tv, and even worse my gun. The only time a warning shot would make any sense to me is if it's meant to scare off a large dangerous animal such as a bear or something that would only get really ****** if you shot it with a 9mm.

Stevie-Ray
November 14, 2008, 08:14 PM
Who is responsible for the round (warning shot) when it kills or seriously injures another completely oblivious person?

Answer: Whoever pulled the trigger (you).In some locales, the perpetrator of the original crime will be charged. For example, somebody comes into your home and kills your wife. You chase him out and fire a warning shot and he stops and goes to ground (God knows why:rolleyes:) You find out later that your warning shot kills an innocent bystander. This all comes out under investigation. He is charged with both killings.

I'm definitely not advocating warning shots; my opinion is in fact the opposite. But, this is a possibility in certain locations where people are obviously sick of the "criminal justice system," and their legislators have listened.

Creature
November 15, 2008, 07:16 AM
In some locales, the perpetrator of the original crime will be charged. For example, somebody comes into your home and kills your wife. You chase him out and fire a warning shot and he stops and goes to ground (God knows why) You find out later that your warning shot kills an innocent bystander. This all comes out under investigation. He is charged with both killings.

The likelihood of your scenario is incredibly slim at best...and I dont believe for one second that you will get off scot-free. Yes, the criminal may get additional charges, but you will be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide at a minimum.

Frank Ettin
November 15, 2008, 11:53 AM
In some locales, the perpetrator of the original crime will be charged. For example, somebody comes into your home and kills your wife. You chase him out and fire a warning shot and he stops and goes to ground ...You find out later that your warning shot kills an innocent bystander. This all comes out under investigation. He is charged with both killings.

...and I dont believe for one second that you will get off scot-free. Yes, the criminal may get additional charges, but you will be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide at a minimum...
I agree with Creature. And while the original perpetrator will have criminal liability under the felony murder rule, you will bear the brunt of the civil liability. You're the one who will get sued, because you're the one with the money and property.

Creature
November 15, 2008, 02:31 PM
In some locales, the perpetrator of the original crime will be charged. For example, somebody comes into your home and kills your wife. You chase him out and fire a warning shot and he stops and goes to ground (God knows why) You find out later that your warning shot kills an innocent bystander. This all comes out under investigation. He is charged with both killings.

And while the original perpetrator will have criminal liability under the felony murder rule, you will bear the brunt of the civil liability. You're the one who will get sued, because you're the one with the money and property.

Exactly. Getting attacked doesnt give you a free check to injure or kill innocent bystanders.

BigMike
November 16, 2008, 09:46 AM
I am opposed to your warning shot, particularly when it enters my house and into my forehead.:mad:

Bad idea.

Stevie-Ray
November 17, 2008, 01:30 AM
Not exactly the same circumstances, but this is what I was talking about:

Sheriff: Attempted carjacker gets shot
Jared Taylor
November 10, 2008 - 6:32PM

EDINBURG -- The clerk warned Alejandro Salinas about the suspicious men who had been hanging out in front of the convenience store for the past hour.He told Salinas to be careful as he went back out to his Chevrolet Z-71 pickup truck, that he had just filled at the Aziz Convenience Store about 11 a.m. Saturday.Salinas walked out to his truck and hopped in.
But before he could close the door, 18-year-old Hector Severo Ramos was holding a .25-caliber pistol at Salinas' neck, said Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño."He says ‘Get out of the truck. I'm going to take it and I'm going to kill you," Treviño said of Ramos. Salinas told the gunman to calm down; they could work things out. Then he pushed Ramos' pistol away, pulled out his own pistol and fired two 9 mm bullets into Ramos' chest. Ramos fired once into the air and his arms fell onto Salinas.The two men tumbled to the pavement as blood spilled from Ramos' chest. Three men who were with Ramos took off from the convenience store at Texas Highway 107 and Alamo Road in a brown Chevrolet Impala, deputies said. Sheriff's deputies responded to the scene and emergency crews rushed Ramos to McAllen Medical Center, where he died upon arrival.
Salinas had a license to carry a concealed firearm and a clean criminal record, Treviño said.
Ramos, a U.S. citizen who lived in South Alamo, had been arrested for giving a false report to a police officer, aggravated robbery, theft and engaging in organized criminal activity, Treviño said. Ramos may have been involved with a local gang or attempting to start a new one, Treviño said. Deputies continue to look for the three men who were with Ramos before he was shot. They could face murder and aggravated robbery charges, Treviño said.
"If they fled knowing (Ramos) was dying at the scene and they were all responsible for the commission of this felony, then they could be held liable for that," Treviño said. Meanwhile, the sheriff said he would likely not pursue criminal charges against Salinas, who told deputies he killed Ramos in self-defense. "This is not a murder," Treviño said. "This is a justifiable homicide."

Sulaco2
November 17, 2008, 04:13 PM
Warn shots are forbidden by every LE depart I am aware of including mine for all the reasons stated above.

JohnH1963
November 17, 2008, 05:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning_shot

As the wikipedia entry indicates, the warning shot was really meant for ships and aircraft whose radios were not functioning OR where there might be some type of communications barrier. A warning shot makes sense with ships and aircraft.

The effect of a warning shot could be two fold in certain situations on the ground. The target could either go to the ground OR the target might make a last ditch charge at you in which 1) they get to you and take away your weapon or 2) you have to shoot the target before they get to you.

The reason why you would not fire a warning shot on the ground is because you dont know what the target might do next. You think they might just drop to the ground or cease hostility when in reality it might provoke the situation further to where your pistol is either taken from you or the target is fired upon.

sigman232
November 17, 2008, 06:33 PM
Warning shots are for Navy boats!
:p

looks, like someone beat me to it.

Sulaco2
November 18, 2008, 03:10 PM
"The reason why you would not fire a warning shot on the ground is because you dont know what the target might do next".

Not to mention the little matter of rickoshay and not knowing where in H%*^ the round will end up! With my luck it would be in a Nun on the way to church! :eek:

Nnobby45
November 18, 2008, 03:38 PM
What about shooting one of those shotgun shells designed to be a noisemaker?


Another warning shot thread?

No professional trainer, or knowledgeable person would advocate relying on a loud harmless noise to frighten a criminal who's weapon would be loaded with real bullets.

The only folks who would advocate (or require) responding to lethal force with non lethal force are liberal anti-gun gas bag politicians and activists and the uninformed.

Since you're just asking a question, I won't put you in that category. And, I wouldn't rule out 100% the warning shot as appropriate under certain, but rare, circumstances.

Your assumption that you'd hear him in plenty of time to put on your ear muffs and send him on his way with a loud noise, and that Bubba would act a certain way because that's what you'd do could be hazardous. Sometimes Bubba might answer with some gunfire of his own.:cool:

csmsss
November 18, 2008, 03:45 PM
Another warning shot thread?

No professional trainer, or knowledgeable person would advocate relying on a loud harmless noise to frighten a criminal who's weapon would be loaded with real bullets.Yep. And I always find it amusing when someone suggests that racking the slide of a scattergun will scare the bad guy into soiling his pants and running away. Fact is, when you "warn" your adversary in a combat situation, you've just abandoned the most important advantage you already possess over him - that of surprise.

doh_312
November 18, 2008, 04:07 PM
My shotgun needs to be racked before it is of any use to me. I do that not to warn intruders, but because I'm not comfortable having a live round in the chamber on a gun that sits in my closet. Now the pistol I wear on my hip is another story, chamered and cocked. If it comes out of my holster I expect it to do business. My warning shot is the first round into the target.

Nnobby45
November 18, 2008, 06:11 PM
My shotgun needs to be racked before it is of any use to me. I do that not to warn intruders, but because I'm not comfortable having a live round in the chamber on a gun that sits in my closet.


That's how shotguns are kept, since many, like the 870 aren't drop safe. There are other safety concerns, as well.

LE is taught to rack the shotgun when "it's use looks imminent". In a home situation that could alert the intruder, but you'll find with a little practice, that you can, from a low ready, rack a shotgun and bring it on target with just about zero time lost over a shotgun that's already racked.

If you have some warning, it can be racked a little more discreetly where most of the noise is the shell popping out of the magazine.:cool:

Hellbent11
November 18, 2008, 10:06 PM
Remembering my Kansas CCL training they say no warning shots/shots to disable. The thinking is that if you "need" a warning shot or shot to disable the situation doesn't justify the use of deadly force.

Erik
November 19, 2008, 08:02 PM
On LEAs authorizing warning shots:

At least two LEAs allow for warning shots under specific circumstances: the USSS and CBP. The DOS and DOE possibly do, as well, again under specific circumstances, but have not been able to confirm it. (To head off the questions, no, I won't discuss when and why they are authorized to do so.)

Scattergun Bob
November 19, 2008, 08:44 PM
I don't know what cruzer ready scatterguns has to do with warning shots? I simply wanted to comment on drop safe scatterguns, besides the AA-12 I know of "0" shotguns that lock the sear and are drop safe.

In regard to "racked a little more discreetly" please take some time to re visit this, doing anything but vigorously pumping your scattergun, travels you down the road to multiple malufactionville.

Good Luck & Be Safe

troy_mclure
November 21, 2008, 11:01 PM
our roe in iraq stayed we had to initiate a warning shot at vehicles coming within 150m of our peremiter, after 100m it was shoot to kill.

i fired 6 warning shots, 4 with a .50bmg and 2 with 5.56 into the vehicles grille.

nukecop, are you using a M9? its a horribly inacurate pistol(especialy with fixed sites) you could use that in your defence.

also remember "its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

ragingbullpa
November 21, 2008, 11:12 PM
In the Castle Doctrine , warning shots not in my house or property:cool:

alienbogey
November 22, 2008, 01:13 AM
Investigator: "Were you aware that ROE required you to fire a warning shot?"

Shooter: "Yes, sir."

Investigator: "But your first shot hit him square in the chest."

Shooter: "I missed."

:D

Recon7
November 22, 2008, 11:38 AM
Shooter: "go ahead and write me up sir, but just think of how much more paperwork you would have to do if HE had shot ME in the chest."

Alaska Wild
November 23, 2008, 03:42 AM
Warning shots never, but verbal commands if feasible might not be out of the question.

Creature
November 23, 2008, 09:26 AM
our roe in iraq stayed we had to initiate a warning shot at vehicles coming within 150m of our peremiter, after 100m it was shoot to kill.

i fired 6 warning shots, 4 with a .50bmg and 2 with 5.56 into the vehicles grille.

nukecop, are you using a M9? its a horribly inacurate pistol(especialy with fixed sites) you could use that in your defence.

This isnt a military operation and we are not talking about exclusion zones.

And regarding your statement about the M9, they are definitely not "horribly inaccurate".

Sulaco2
November 25, 2008, 04:44 PM
The M9 will do its job if you do yours. Recent shooting on an Air Force base in ND. Armed rampage by goblin ended when USAF SF cop fired ONE 9mm round at the suspect at over 60 (i think it was, may have been longer) yards away and killed the goblin. He got a airmans medal as I recall.

B.N.Real
November 27, 2008, 09:00 AM
Any semi auto can jam.

ANY semi auto.

I prefer my first necessary to fire shot be in the threat.

Then at least I can have time to swipe the jam away or rack the slide if necessary.

As others have said,for example in a convienance store or a restaurant,with a crazy person threatening you with a knife or a gun or simply through their out of control actions,warning shots can easily bounce off floors or walls and kill innocent people.

You will have to justify every shot you take.

I prefer every shot I take to be exactly into the chest/head area of the deadly threat.

Along with the verbal warnings -if I have time- to say to them of "STOP NOW,DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU."

Regular Joe
November 29, 2008, 01:36 AM
This has to be entirely case by case. I was out hunting once, about 400 yds. from my car when a carload of people pulled up next to it (in the middle of nowhere). They soon started trying to force entry into my car. A short distance from the cars was a toppled water tank. I fired a warning shot at that, and it rang like a big bell. In that unique situation, I was carrying a .223 varmint rig, and I probably would NOT have shot to hurt anyone, even if they didn't stop. No, my next shot would have been at their car. The one shot was all it took though. No-one hurt, or even endangered, as I prefer to keep it.

Kline605
November 30, 2008, 07:36 AM
There should be no shooting to wound. If the situation is bad enough for you to pull the trigger then you should be shooting center mass until the threat has stopped. (Failure Drill exceptions noted)

As for ROE, having been in the military for numerous years and deploying several times, I understand the requirement, I just don't agree with it. Overseas in an armpit of the world, maybe a warning shot (situationally dependant) is appropriate. In the U.S., no damn way.

Johnc
November 30, 2008, 08:32 AM
In defense of others or SD, no warning shot. In a case like REGULAR JOE's, yes.

I did not read every line on this thread, so if anyone else covered it sorry. I would fear the potential effects of blindness from muzzle flash at night or temporary loss of hearing from a warning shot. In a gunfight you need to have all your senses at 100%. If you fire a warning shot, compromise your senses and need to then engage your primary target, or worse yet, a secondary (previously unknown) target, you are now at a loss.

Thinking responsibly, where did that warning shot go? Was it in a safe direction?

eaglesnester
November 30, 2008, 05:37 PM
Warning Shot? I think not, shoot to kill, center body mass empty your weapon or shoot until your target is dead or down and not moving

bustavista32
December 6, 2008, 07:36 PM
Warning shots are just made up fallacies by the movie industry.

FireForged
December 6, 2008, 07:42 PM
as just a plane ole Citizen.. I dont believe in warning shots. I could spend that time trying to get away from the problem. I would only pull a weapon if I was going to use it as a weapon.

mrghostwalker
December 10, 2008, 10:46 PM
WHA!!!! Eaglesnester wash your mouth out with soap!!!!!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER say that you shoot to kill! It's things like that- that will cause all your belongings to be awarded to the low-life's next of kin!
ALWAY say that you shoot to "stop the threat", and then "I stopped once the threat was gone". All Cops are drilled on this point.
Sure, we might kill the low-life in the process of "stopping the threat" but-and this is the important part- you didn't intend to kill him!

Apone
December 11, 2008, 12:40 AM
Personal opinion. I think warning shots are a wonderful idea. If I ever have to fire my pistol in defense of my life, I plan to give three: two to the chest and one to the head! Mozambique! I meant, er...halt or I'll shoot. If I draw it will be for good reason, and I would give one verbal "Hey, stop (three consecutive expletives followed by the activity of the BG) or I will end your worthless life!"

My two cents.

Viking Josh
December 13, 2008, 05:17 PM
The only warning shot my assailant gets is the one that doesn't drop him in the first hit.

OldMarksman
December 13, 2008, 05:51 PM
I would give one verbal "Hey, stop (three consecutive expletives followed by the activity of the BG) or I will end your worthless life!"

That's something you may not want to provide to the prosecutor for possible use against you... "Stop or I'll shoot" might be better.

Lay opinion.

Apone
December 13, 2008, 09:35 PM
That's something you may not want to provide to the prosecutor for possible use against you... "Stop or I'll shoot" might be better.

Lay opinion.

Duly noted.

MaxHeadSpace
December 15, 2008, 11:39 PM
They get to know that you have a firearm when the bullets are coming out of the muzzle and in their direction. If you don't have justification to shoot -- to use lethal force in self defense -- then you have no legal justification to draw your gun, threaten to draw your gun, "index" your gun, pull back your jacket, etc.

In this state all that sort of behavior is statutorily "brandishing."

JohnKSa
December 15, 2008, 11:48 PM
If you don't have justification to shoot -- to use lethal force in self defense -- then you have no legal justification to draw your gun, threaten to draw your gun, "index" your gun, pull back your jacket, etc. That depends.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.04.00

THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Basically in TX you can threaten deadly force when force is justified even if the actual use of deadly force is not justified.

For reference, 'deadly force' (which is NOT the same thing as 'force') is carefully defined earlier in this section of the penal code.

Personally I think warning shots are a very bad idea.

Wuchak
December 16, 2008, 01:58 AM
I think warning shots are a very bad idea in a SD situation. That might be the only shot you get a chance to fire before the BG kills you.

The one story of a warning shot that did like was: A farmer was getting tired of having the local teenagers break into his tractor shed and steal his gas. One night he heard a noise and looked out the window to see the light, a single hanging bare bulb, on in the shed. He could see people moving about inside. He quietly opened his bedroom window, grabbed his .22 rifled, and shot out the light bulb. He got a couple of free gas cans that were left behind and his gas stopped disappearing.

TacticalDefense1911
December 16, 2008, 08:02 AM
I'm a little late to the show here but I'll weigh in anyways. Considering that you are morally responsible for every bullet that is discharged from your firearm it is a very bad idea to fire a warning shot. Many times you will not know what is behind your threat, like innocent people, and by firing you then become the aggressor. If the threat does not have a weapon pulled yet, you firing could give him legal cause to "defend himself" with lethal force. If you pull the trigger of your CCW it should be to eliminate a threat that has given you no other option.

chrisbarcelo
December 30, 2008, 12:33 AM
Funny issue this warning shot. And where are we suppose to fire our guns during warning shot? This is just the same as saying HI BAD GUY, HERE I AM A CAPT OF THE PHIL MARINES AND I AM ARMED AND I AM WARNING YOU! Remember, that the guy you are supposed to warn is armed as well, I bet before you have time to level your weapon at him he is pumping you full of tiny itsy bitty holes from his 7.62 rifle yes? Well, if its an issue of my men's welfare, myself or my friend's we can forget all about this warning shot issue. I dont mean to be rude or a fatalist but, well, that is the real scenario here in Mindanao.

lvhutch77
December 30, 2008, 02:57 AM
I was told by a cop buddy of mine that I should always fire a warning shot. . . but that hole in the ceiling should be the last one I shoot.

Powderman
December 30, 2008, 04:21 AM
There are some well meaning, but VERY misguided comments in this thread.

In case some of you might have missed, NukeCop is a serving member of the Armed Forces. In this case, I believe he (or she) is asking the question in a rhetorical sense, and without the intent to seek guidance in the commission of an act which is unlawful under the present circumstances.

You see, in addition to the laws of the host nation, NukeCop is also under the provisions and jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice--as long as he (or she) carries the identification card of a servicemember.

First, the three General Orders under which servicemembers perform duties as Sentinels of the Guard are specific:

1. I will guard everything within the limits of my post, and quit my post only when properly relieved.

2. I will obey my special orders, and perform all my duties in a military manner.

3. I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions to the Commander of the Relief.

Different branches have different wording and length, but the intent is still the same. Thus, if the special orders for NukeCop's post call for warning shots, and then shots directed at the pelvic area, he (or she) had damned well better do EXACTLY that--and NOTHING ELSE.

Should he (or she) make the decision to step outside the boundaries of the special orders, this is what they might face:

...(1) In that you did, while assigned as a Sentinel of the Guard at Post XXX, failed to follow your Special Orders, of which you had prior knowledge, to wit: fire warning shots to discourage a breach of your post. This is in violation of Article 92(2), UCMJ.
...(2) In that you did, while assigned as a Sentinel of the Guard at Post XXX, failed to follow your Special Orders, of which you had prior knowledge, to wit: to fire aimed shots at the lower body/pelvic area to stop or disable an intruder. This is in violation of Article 92(2), UCMJ.

...(3) In that you did, while assigned as a Sentinel of the Guard at Post XXX, did commit the act of Murder, by intentionally discharging your assigned weapon at the chest area of XXXXX, thus causing death as a direct result of your actions. This is in violation of Article 118, UCMJ.

____________

If they find in Courts-Martial that NukeCop intended to kill the intruder, guess what the penalty is? It involves being the target at a high-power match.

Para Bellum
January 3, 2009, 05:21 AM
...if there is a secure backstop. I met five guys who owe their lifes to a decent warning shot. And I know a guy who could avoid killing these five because he placed a warning shot into a secure backstop.

If the BGs are not drugged, the "sobering" effect of a warning shot whith a loud fast supersonic caliber (e.g. 9x19, .357 etc) is amazing. Even out in a free area the unexpected blast of such a gun totally resets your perception of the situation.

So, IF and ONLY IF
- there is enough time (i.e. distance between BG and you), and
- there is a secure backstop,
I'd prefer a warning shot over every other nonlethal first action such as pepper etc.

Chuckusaret
January 12, 2009, 10:39 AM
I use what I call a warning shot. The BG hears the shot fired as the round hits him in the COM.

Para Bellum
January 17, 2009, 03:38 AM
1.) Never go clear your house.
2.) Protect your loved ones but retreat and call 911.
3.) When you move in your house, you give all advantage away.
4.) A friend did exactly that once. Heard burglers at night. Opended bedroom window (2nd floor) and shot into his yard with a 12ga. BGs ran for their lives. :eek:

armsmaster270
January 17, 2009, 05:14 AM
As a retired Police Officer, Rangemaster and Military Policeman, Squad leader and Senior M.P.I. all warning shots do is decrease your firepower by one round, give the perp the chance to claim he fired back in self defense and increase the chances that YOU wil cause collerateral damage to another

Scattergun Bob
January 17, 2009, 09:40 AM
+100, on your post. There are rules of engagment that require warnings, those few instances aside, your post cut the X ring.:)

Nice to have somone with your experience with us.

Good Luck & Stay Safe

Para Bellum
January 17, 2009, 09:46 AM
Having used warning shots, saving me from having to kill, I favor them if the circumstances allow for them...(as posted above)

pistolpackin29
January 17, 2009, 10:00 AM
Verbal warning then shoot! Just make sure they are facing you. But if they decided to leave on there own you can not shoot them in the back.

FireForged
January 17, 2009, 01:13 PM
As a citizen, I do not believe in a warning shot. I will fire a weapon as a last resort, period. A warning shot is hardly a "last resort".

Only S&W and Me
January 17, 2009, 01:42 PM
I think in some situations, such as a woods area, a warning shot is a very good deterent. My "procedure" if in an open area if I feel a threat from someone while I mind my own business:

If I have the time:

1) Draw, present, but do not point the gun
2) If he continues to approach, verbal to back off, point gun. If they do not back off decide if a warning shot to left or right is acceptable for area. No weapon present from them makes this more likely.
3) If they continue to come with motive and threat to my life or obvious weapon pressent, then they meet a .40 S&W.