Some good information on warning shots and a scenario

[usaign]

I researched the issue further about warning shots and came to the following conclusions:

- Warning shots can be considered the use of deadly force in some states such as Florida. There are laws in some states about the misuse of deadly force which carry mandatory sentences.

- Warning shots can be considered aggravated assault with a firearm in some states which is a felony. In Florida, it is a mandatory 3 year sentence.

- Before firing off a warning shot you have to be able to prove the use of deadly force was neccasary to stop the threat.

- The use of deadly force is never justified simply by words or verbal threats.

- The use of deadly force is never justified against an unarmed individual who is at a distance from you. If they are charging at you, then it becomes a grey area. A judge or jury might ultimately decide if it was a proper use of force or not.

Most police departments actually forbid the use of warning shots because:
- May impact an innocent bystander
- May impact a suspect when deadly force is not justified
- May precipitate another officer to shoot someone unjustifiably
- May cause the recipient of the warning shot to escalate his/her use of force against the officer(s)
- May impact on property causing damage
- An officer who improperly shoots a person (accidentally or otherwise) may try to claim that the impacting shot was a warning shot
- May engender fear in innocent bystanders

So, in short, you have to justify the use of deadly force was neccasary in order to fire off a warning shot. Most police departments forbid or strongly discourage the practice. If there is not a law directly forbidding a warning shots, there are other laws that indirectly forbid it unless it fits a very narrow set of criteria.

Here is a good example of when a warning shot was justified. You have two armed men with pistols and actual physical violence. In my opinion, this was justified.
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/crime...tside-his-home

Here is a good example when a warning shot was NOT justified.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/CrimeBlotte...d=91400&page=1

Here is another good example when a warning shot was NOT justified. The crime this woman was arrested for carries a mandatory 3 year sentence.
http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12834306

Here is a questionable justification of the use of a warning shot. There seemed to be a burglary, but the police still questioned the need for deadly force and so the man was arrested. The matter will be decided by a judge or jury if the man does not plead guilty first.
http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=12849480


So now I have the scenario which is where an LAPD officer fired off a warning shot as a form of crowd control. Is firing a warning shot an acceptable method to control a crowd?

http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/45474

[ISC]

Part of our (Army) escalation of force ROE in Iraq is the use of a warning shot. We are specifically trained to pick out something for a backstop to minimize the chance of a richochet.

[Double Naught Spy]

So now I have the scenario which is where an LAPD officer fired off a warning shot as a form of crowd control. Is firing a warning shot an acceptable method to control a crowd?

You have trivialized the scenario. It was not used simply as a method of crowd control. The firing officer was not trying to drive a crowd of people from a building to the parking lot so that they would leave faster or to keep revelers was walking on the grass in the park.

Several officers were being assaulted by a large mob whose aggressive behavior was escalating. It was crowd control only in the sense that it was an act of self defense against a crowd in which nine officers were injured.

This wasn't just a crowd, but a full blown riot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...mpionship.html

In at least parts of it, you get people throwing rocks at vehicle, fights, etc.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...50-504083.html

Was it a justified use of lethal force to stop rioting attackers who were injuring greatly outnumbered officers engaged in their duies so as to preclude further injury to said officers? That might have been a better question to ask for this scenario.

At this point, we don't have information to know if the rioters were using lethal force or force with the potential to cause serious bodily injury to the cops or not. If the rioters, even just a one or two were throwing large rocks, bricks, etc. for example, then it could be argued that the legal line was crossed for the use of lethal force in self defense. That does not mean to imply that it was necessarily prudent or not. I have watched cops in riot situations not use lethal force when it would have been legal for them to do so.

It should be pointed out that not all of the cops working the riot were in full riot gear.

[usaign]

I think we do have a good grasp of the situation:

http://lapdblog.typepad.com/lapd_blo...nruly-mob.html

"...the mob’s aggression continued to escalate, and officers were assaulted as they struggled to take two more suspects into custody."

"Nine officers were injured during the confrontation. Injuries included numerous contusions, abrasions and a fractured nose."

Im certain if the crowd wielded deadly weapons then the official LAPD blog would have indicated it. So it sounds like the officers were involved in a good fist-fight with members of the crowd to the point where bones were being broken. However, if you are observing a fist fight, at what point is it justified to use deadly force? If firing a warning shot is considered an assault with a firearm, then at what point is it ok to assault someone with a firearm?

The officers looked like they were taking a beating, but were their lives truly in danger? If someone cold cocks me in the face with their fist, is it ok for me to take out my pistol and fire shots in the air?

This is the first time I have read where an officer used their pistol to fire warning shots to disperse an unruly crowd.

[ISC]

This makes me think about the Israelis that were attacked when they inspected the Hamas resupply ship recently. Getting overwhelmed by a mob armed with bludgeons can kill you just as dead as getting shot.

[animal]

Anyone that doesn’t count the mob itself as deadly force has never seen a real multiple opponent fight or how an angry mob acts, much less faced multiple opponents using relatively "harmless" fists.
Once you’re off your feet, you are dead if they want you dead … or if they are too stupid or mad to realize what an extra kick or stomp to the right place to the guy on the ground can do.

As far as I’m concerned, a proper warning shot would have been center of mass to the most aggressive opponent. A proper "backstop" is the mob itself. Sounds harsh, but reality is harsh sometimes. The mob is not a group of innocents and bad guys, it is entity unto itself and each individual is a part of it.

A warning shot into the air is taking a risk. (In reality, it’s a very small risk, even in a heavily populated area.) If the shooter is willing to take that risk, he bears responsibility for the consequences, just as if he chose a weak backstop or one that causes a ricochet. The shooter’s focus is on diffusing the conflict without causing harm to the individuals in the mob … Intent to cause harm is absent, so a criminal penalty (if any) should arise from negligence, and judging whether the shooter was negligent ; should focus on the reasonable expectations of the result of his actions.

Warning shots like in the mob situation are examples of the shooter taking a risk of causing harm to the "innocent" in order to avoid causing harm to the "guilty". Imo, he can rightfully take the chance to be "nicer" to the mob than the treatment it "deserves", as long as there is no reasonable expectation of causing harm to the innocent.

Citing the laws defining warning shots as the use of deadly force supports an absurd argument with codified absurdity, imo. Without intent, deadly force is not being used. Force is being used to display that you can be deadly. There is a huge difference.
If the use of force is justified in the immediate situation and becomes deadly in a way that was beyond reasonable expectations, it should not be considered a crime.
If the use of force was not justified in the immediate situation and becomes deadly, the crime is one of criminal negligence.
Unjustified use of force and no harm to innocents, the crime is one of recklessness.
Justified use with no harm to innocents, everybody wins except those who deserve to lose.

[troy_mclure]

Part of our (Army) escalation of force ROE in Iraq is the use of a warning shot. We are specifically trained to pick out something for a backstop to minimize the chance of a richochet.

i got chewed out for using the m2 to fire a warning shot! lol

[usaign]

"If the use of force is justified in the immediate situation and becomes deadly in a way that was beyond reasonable expectations, it should not be considered a crime."

Think about that. If that was a valid excuse then every one would be saying right after they shot a person that they were only firing a warning shot.

What if the officers surrounding the officer who fired the warning shot mistakenly believed the shot came from the crowd or an individual?

[Double Naught Spy]

Im certain if the crowd wielded deadly weapons then the official LAPD blog would have indicated it.

Maybe, maybe not. The blog did not indicate the size of the mob, any weapons at all of the officers other than the officer that shot.

The officers looked like they were taking a beating, but were their lives truly in danger? If someone cold cocks me in the face with their fist, is it ok for me to take out my pistol and fire shots in the air?

While I appreciate you trying to make this personal by placing yourself into the argument, you have misrepresented the context of the officer incident with your personal example. The officer who fired was not the one being attacked. The blog specifically stated that she fired ONE SHOT when she feared for the safety of her officers, not that she had been hit. On top of that, it wasn't just one person getting hit in the face, but a group of officers trying to make and arrest who came under attack from a mob.

Were their lives truly in danger? Yes. Not only that, but they were in danger of significant bodily injury. No doubt the officer her fired her pistol felt this to be true and hence the justification.

[usaign]

I think if this method of crowd was an officially sanctioned technique, then they should at least make purposeful blanks. There are non-lethal shotgun rounds that do not have any shot which have an intended purpose of just making sound.

The LAPD is a savvy organization. Why did it not issue such rounds to the officers if thats the way they wanted them to control the crowd? They issued helmets and other riot gear, why not blanks or non-lethal rounds?

[ISC]

armchair quarterbacking never does any good.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

...You [usaign] have trivialized the scenario. It was not used simply as a method of crowd control. ...Several officers were being assaulted by a large mob whose aggressive behavior was escalating. It was crowd control only in the sense that it was an act of self defense against a crowd in which nine officers were injured....

+1

Originally Posted by usaign

...Im certain if the crowd wielded deadly weapons then the official LAPD blog would have indicated it. So it sounds like the officers were involved in a good fist-fight with members of the crowd to the point where bones were being broken....

In fact the blog noted the presence of at least one lethal weapon, a skateboard: "...some members of the crowd begin to vandalize an advertisement kiosk near a bus stop after one of them shattered the kiosk’s glass with his skateboard...."(last sentence of the second paragraph, emphasis added)

As far as the officers just being involved in a fist fight, in general one is justified in employing lethal force only when a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what he knows, would conclude that lethal force is necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. To demonstrate that there was indeed a real danger from the assailant, one must show that the assailant had (1) the Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm; (2) the Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and (3) put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple.

Certainly one could reasonably conclude that a mob, even if unarmed, has the ability by reason of force of numbers to cause great bodily injury of death. In this case the mob demonstrated the opportunity; they were attacking. And the injuries received by some to the officer show that they were, in fact, in jeopardy.

I'm personally satisfied that, based on the information provided, a reasonable and prudent person in the same situation as that of the officer who fired the warning shot would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to officers attempting to effect a lawful arrest.

Originally Posted by usaign

...The LAPD is a savvy organization. Why did it not issue such rounds to the officers if thats the way they wanted them to control the crowd?...

Again you misrepresent the circumstances. This incident was not a matter of crowd control. It was a matter of self defense (or the defense of others).

And yes, the LAPD has various types of riot gear and less lethal munitions. They may not, however, been immediately available at the scene; and depending on the reasons these officers were present at the particular location, there may have been no reason for them to have had them. In any case, in an emergency, when time is of the essence, one must make do with what one has immediately at hand.

[old bear]

I think we do have a good grasp of the situation:

usaign
Who is we?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Pogo and friends?

Just an historical oddity - I read that the Dutch police used to carry a blank round as first in their revolvers.

Not that I recommend, that.

I also caution OP's from misrepresenting incidents, if that is the case here.

[animal]

"If the use of force is justified in the immediate situation and becomes deadly in a way that was beyond reasonable expectations, it should not be considered a crime."

Think about that. If that was a valid excuse then every one would be saying right after they shot a person that they were only firing a warning shot.

What if the officers surrounding the officer who fired the warning shot mistakenly believed the shot came from the crowd or an individual?

It’s not meant as an "excuse", but as a justification … an explanation of how an action taken was correct.
I have thought about it actually, and find your suggestion that every person shooting someone could claim it was a warning shot … to be either misrepresenting or misunderstanding my statement.

How many "what ifs" do you want to go through? Your imaginative ability is the only limit to the number of possibilities. Most will not be reasonable expectations, though.
There are several possibilities arising from hypothetical mistakes of the officers. These possibilities are largely reduced to near-irrelevance by their training and by the various advantages in perception they have by actually being in the situation.
Just for the sake of playing the game a bit more, imo .. the most common result in the officers making such a mistake would be momentary distraction from the immediate fight at hand… which would then result in another branch in possibilities, then another, and so on, and so on. Even if you were to take the most probable branch in each successive possibility, after only a few "branches" the possibility of the most likely result actually occurring … could be absurdly remote.

Lethality to the mob is justified through its actions and power it has.
A warning shot is often effective to turn a mob. If properly employed, it is non-lethal to bystanders and could result in dispersal of the mob (changing the mob back into a group of individuals).
Since lethal force is justified, using a warning shot is an attempt to show mercy towards the individuals misbehaving by forming themselves into the mob.

The question becomes : Is mercy to the guilty justifiable ? Personally, I think not.
However, I think it must be allowed and respected in recognition of our own humanity and that of others whenever we have the chance to show it … IF we can do it without causing harm to the innocent or to society itself. I think many would additionally take this as a personal duty to their God, and imo some wrongfully attempt to legislate such things (with sometimes disastrous unintended consequences such as "obligations to flee" and many other infringements of the unalienable rights of man.)

Showing mercy is beyond justification, one of the unalienable rights of man itself, and therefore should never be required nor prohibited by laws. It’s proper use can be regulated, and laws can be made to ensure it’s proper regulation, but only to the point of preventing the USE of mercy from becoming a detriment to the strength of society or the reasonable expectation of safety for the innocent.

By the way, government and laws do not define society under our Constitution. We the People are society and create the government as a slave, by the contract between ourselves (Constitution) to simultaneously serve both ourselves and fellow man. Unalienable rights are those we cannot give up and still be considered free men. If they are given up, we redefine ourselves as slaves and the Constitution becomes a contract between govt. and a society of subservient people.

[war_elephant]

My take as a retired LEO, firearms instructor, tactical instructor, etc

if I have to justify the shot anyway... and must meet all of the deadly force requirements before doing so... If I have to drop the hammer, I am going to shoot the guy that needs to be shot. Also, YOU are liable for every shot you fire, warning shots included, what goes up, must come down, and will usually hit an innocent bystander, probably someone's child or a mom. In NJ, warning shots are forbidden, and you will go to prison if you fire a warning shot. Better to say you missed accidentally. But if the bullet hits the wrong person, a miss is a bad as a warning shot or deliberately shooting an innocent victim, you will go to jail without passing go, or collecting 200$
I carry a Kimber with 7 rounds and one additional mag, I am not wasting a round. It goes with it's brother into the target/perp/bad guy, in a controlled pair or double tap depending on the range.

Just my .002

War_elephant
Firearms instructor, and all around nice guy

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by animal

...How many "what ifs" do you want to go through? Your imaginative ability is the only limit to the number of possibilities. Most will not be reasonable expectations, though...

Exactly, there are virtually unlimited "what ifs" many, or most, of which might well yield different answers.

But we have before us an actual event. And the information available leads to the conclusion that the use of lethal force was justified. And while in general a warning shot is a bad idea, it seems to have worked here.

It's also worth noting that it's likely that the officers involved did not have less lethal munitions at hand. As noted in the blog, they were undercover and not engaged in normal crowd control activities. So it's likely that the only "noise maker" available was the officer's sidearm.

One could perhaps question whether firing the shot into the air was a particularly good idea. The bullet must, after all, return to earth somewhere. But maybe the officer who fired had some good reason for concluding that she had picked a reasonably safe direction in which to fire. She was, after all, an experienced officer and supervisor, and the situation appears to have been exigent. In any case, it seems that she was correct and that things worked out. At least we have no information to indicate that an innocent was injured by the round she fired.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by war_elephant

...if I have to justify the shot anyway... and must meet all of the deadly force requirements before doing so... If I have to drop the hammer, I am going to shoot the guy that needs to be shot....

And it might have been that the officer who fired concluded that she really didn't have that option.

It's not clear how far she was from the melee. She might not have been in a good position to identify and hit a particular target. Firing into a group of people fighting with each other doesn't seem to be a terribly attractive or defensible option, especially when she might easily have shot a fellow officer.

[JohnKSa]

So now I have the scenario which is where an LAPD officer fired off a warning shot as a form of crowd control. Is firing a warning shot an acceptable method to control a crowd?

I don't know about CA laws, but in TX, if I reasonably believed that I was in immediate danger of death or serious injury from a crowd and if I reasonably believed at the time that there were no other methods available to me that could reasonably be expected to preserve my life then it would certainly be legally justified to shoot either at the crowd or as a warning.

The same would be true if it were some other innocent in danger and I reasonably believed that, in their position, I would reasonably believe that I was in immediate danger of death or serious injury from a crowd and that I would also reasonably believe at the time that there were no other methods available to me that could reasonably be expected to preserve my life.

[T. O'Heir]

"...warning shots..." Think in terms of where that bullet ends up.
Like war_elephant says, you are responsible for every shot you fire.

[Wagonman]

First, someone opined we should carry a non lethal round for this sort of situation. Where the heck would you have us carry this piece of equipment?

I am not a small guy and with all the gear I have to carry my belt and vest is pretty well laden down right now, and you want to add another piece of equipment.

You are in a MOB situation vastly outnumbered with wounded Coppers on the field that is a deadly force scenario.

"R/O due to the fact that above offenders had already injured officers, would not comply with verbal commands and physical tactics and continued to commit the offense of Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer utilized deadly force to stop the most brazen offender being in fear for his life and the lives of his fellow Officers"

[animal]

and will usually hit an innocent bystander, probably someone's child or a mom.

Nice example of Murphy’s Law, but simply not true in reality.

A prime example of an exaggeration that leads to passing BS into law, imo … some of which, NJ is infamous for.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BTW, Wagonman - some of the officers around here have a little holder on their belts for two less than lethal 12 gauge shells for their shotguns in the car. Not that I'm recommeding anything - just mentioning something I've seen.

[TylerD45ACP]

Every bullet that leaves your firearm absolutley 100% responsible for, glad to see everyone agrees about that. As to firing warning shots, I don't know, and If I did there would be a serious backstop I was aiming at, taking into account caliber and ballistics. However, if there is an immenient threat and I feel as though my life is in danger no warning shots except for the ones that hit the chest. If your worrying about trying to warn off a threat by a shot, it could take important focus of the threat. Just my little opinions on the subject.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

...some of the officers around here have a little holder on their belts for two less than lethal 12 gauge shells for their shotguns in the car. Not that I'm recommeding anything - just mentioning something I've seen.

Interesting.

In our little community, the police have gone over to dedicated "less lethal" shotguns in all the cars -- no live shotgun ammunition at all. The idea, of course, is to avoid nasty surprises. And if the situation warrants something more serious, each car also has an AR-15.

But I suspect that in the situation under discussion, all the officers involved had were sidearms. According to the blog, they were undercover.