Warning Shots..Good or Bad idea? - Page 5

ragingbullpa · November 21, 2008, 11:12 PM

In the Castle Doctrine , warning shots not in my house or property

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."

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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...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.

November 21, 2008, 11:12 PM	#101
ragingbullpa Junior Member Join Date: November 21, 2008 Location: wilkes-barre, pa Posts: 5	I'm a firm Believer In the Castle Doctrine , warning shots not in my house or property __________________ RagingBullPa Bob M SR Never Mind About The Dog Beware Of Owner Throwers Prayer- May My throws Never Land

November 27, 2008, 09:00 AM	#107
B.N.Real Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2008 Posts: 4,092	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." Last edited by B.N.Real; November 27, 2008 at 03:07 PM.

November 30, 2008, 08:32 AM	#110
Johnc Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2006 Location: Long Island NY Posts: 566	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? __________________ http://www.longislandfirearms.com http://www.liffreedomfund.org/

November 30, 2008, 05:37 PM	#111
eaglesnester Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2007 Posts: 100	warning shot? 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

December 6, 2008, 07:42 PM	#113
FireForged Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 1999 Location: Rebel South USA Posts: 2,074	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. __________________ Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

November 22, 2008, 01:13 AM	#102
alienbogey Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2008 Location: Puget Sound Area Posts: 269	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."

November 22, 2008, 11:38 AM	#103
Recon7 Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2005 Posts: 707	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."

November 23, 2008, 03:42 AM	#104
Alaska Wild Member Join Date: November 15, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 18	Warning shots never, but verbal commands if feasible might not be out of the question.

November 25, 2008, 04:44 PM	#106
Sulaco2 Senior Member Join Date: June 5, 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,247	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.

November 29, 2008, 01:36 AM	#108
Regular Joe Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2008 Posts: 255	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.

November 30, 2008, 07:36 AM	#109
Kline605 Member Join Date: November 25, 2008 Location: Midwest Posts: 49	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.

December 6, 2008, 07:36 PM	#112
bustavista32 Junior Member Join Date: November 22, 2008 Posts: 9	Warning shots are just made up fallacies by the movie industry.

December 10, 2008, 10:46 PM	#114
mrghostwalker Member Join Date: August 4, 2008 Location: Connecticut Posts: 34	Bad choice of words 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! __________________ -mrghostwalker And this be our motto: "In God is our trust" And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

December 11, 2008, 12:40 AM	#115
Apone Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2008 Location: Kingwood, TX Posts: 269	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.

December 13, 2008, 05:17 PM	#116
Viking Josh Member Join Date: December 13, 2008 Posts: 29	The only warning shot my assailant gets is the one that doesn't drop him in the first hit.

December 15, 2008, 11:39 PM	#119
MaxHeadSpace Junior member Join Date: December 8, 2008 Posts: 129	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." Last edited by MaxHeadSpace; December 15, 2008 at 11:46 PM.

December 16, 2008, 01:58 AM	#121
Wuchak Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2007 Location: Shawnee, KS Posts: 1,093	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.

December 16, 2008, 08:02 AM	#122
TacticalDefense1911 Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,277	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.

December 30, 2008, 12:33 AM	#123
chrisbarcelo Member Join Date: December 28, 2008 Posts: 48	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.

December 30, 2008, 02:57 AM	#124
lvhutch77 Junior Member Join Date: December 30, 2008 Posts: 3	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.

December 30, 2008, 04:21 AM	#125
Powderman Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2001 Location: Washington State Posts: 2,166	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.