The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Some good information on warning shots and a scenario

usaign · August 1, 2010, 02:59 AM

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

August 1, 2010, 02:59 AM	#1
usaign Junior member Join Date: July 11, 2010 Posts: 73	Some good information on warning shots and a scenario 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