The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 2, 2017, 07:12 PM   #51
MarkGlazer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2013
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 329
The average response time of a local police department is in the neighborhood of 6 minutes. The average time frame that a violent act takes place in which a self defense response may be required is a matter of seconds. Have you really got time to consider a 'warning shot?' Silly.

I realize the OP was citing a law enforcement officers' response. However, I think of me in the scenario as a private citizen, it's still silly. Plus, considering the source of the article makes the discussion even more disturbing since they only deal in the world of perfect circumstances and fantasy outcomes. (OK, I am jaded, but still....)
__________________
non ministrari sed ministrare
MarkGlazer is offline  
Old April 3, 2017, 02:02 PM   #52
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
Warning shot, stupid idea. You shoot to stop the threat, period.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old April 3, 2017, 03:25 PM   #53
peggysue
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 1,835
This just happened in my local. A Davenport man was cited for discharge of a firearm in city limits after police say he shot a couple of rounds into the air after confronting several people on his porch who kicked in his door.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-...852400ede.html
peggysue is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 10:20 AM   #54
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loosedhorse View Post
NPR ran a story a couple of days ago. In the aftermath of well-publicized "police shootings of unarmed suspects", apparently several items are now being re-evaluated as possibly re-entering police "use of force" policies:
  • Warning shots
  • Shooting to wound
Special treat: one of the commenters that NPR chose was Massad Ayoob. Very unusual for NPR to have a real gun and self-defense expert commenting, in my opinion.



Story: Police warning shots may be in for a comeback




  1. What do you think of changing the police policy?
  2. If the policy does change, does that mean that private citizens should also adopt these deadly-force options for lawful self-defense by private citizens?
  3. If police policy changes, and private citizens do no follow suit, do they then become vulnerable to the charge, "You didn't have to shoot to kill: you could have fired a warning shot, or shot to wound"?



My take, FWIW: I understand, especially in the wake of what might seem to be "too many" shootings by police, deciding to review police use-of-force policies. I even understand starting the review process with "all options on the table for discussion." Having said that, I think that "shooting to wound" is a VERY bad idea for all the reasons usually discussed. I also think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is another bad idea.


Bad idea? Depends. I've always been of the opinion that we need a zero tolerance of "zero tolerance policies." In this case it kind of applies...can someone say with 100% certainty that there is NEVER a time or place where a warning shot or shooting to wound could not apply?

[VIDEO]https://youtu.be/_75uR4u5YEs[/VIDEO]

I don't expect to be doing something like that, but if a drunk man is trying to assault someone?

[VIDEO]https://youtu.be/XiNaAaEjBFE[/VIDEO]

If That person "missed" and shot him in the hip rendering him unable to walk? Would you blame him? I think you touched the most important part of the question: will we be held to the standard and judged by what we "could have done" instead of what we did? And that is the point of stand your ground imo. The problem with the idea of both concepts is well documented here, but suffice it to say...back drop and escalating the situation.

Personally? I think it is the duty of every concealed carrier to de escalate the situation if they find themselves in it, and understand how to get out of the situation without the gun first. But I'm a martial artist before a concealed carrier. So that is easier said from my end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 11:14 AM   #55
Loosedhorse
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
Quote:
can someone say with 100% certainty that there is NEVER a time or place where a warning shot or shooting to wound could not apply?
No.

However, I DID say (as you quoted) think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is a bad idea. In other words, having a policy that covers 99.999% of cases is not a bad idea. For that last 0.001%, sure, the person who violates the policy can argue that it was the right thing to do in that particular case, and why.

Being against "zero tolerance policies" does not mean being against policies that prohibit certain actions; it does mean that you want each alleged violation of policy is looked at individually, including looking at the presence of any unusual circumstances. In a "zero-tolerance policy", all violations are treated the same, regardless of circumstances.

So: a marksman with great conditions and a still target, who "shoots to wound"--or even better, shoots the gun out of the suspect's hand, just like on TV!--thus saving the suspect's life? Fine by me. She or he can explain the reasons for the policy violation (or the senior officer who authorized the shot can explain why he or she violated policy). Doesn't mean that a policy against such shots is a bad idea.

"Shooting to wound"--if it RESULTS in a stopped, not-mortally-wounded suspect--is not bad at all; I'd be happy to authorize that result!


The problem is that the "technique" of "shooting to wound" does not guarantee that result. Shots fired away from the usual "center mass" target area are LESS likely to stop the attacker quickly; and stopping the attacker is the goal. If the attacker is not stopped quickly because you "shot to wound", now what? If you keep shooting, your probability of getting the result you wanted is decreasing with every shot.

Add to that that shots that shots aimed at legs and arms can hit "more vital" areas (by bad aim in an emergency, or if the suspect moves); and even hits on arms and legs can produce rapidly fatal injury, while STILL not stopping the threat: he's already dead, but he hasn't stopped fighting yet; the public and the police remain at risk as long as he's active.

And of course limbs move more quickly than does the chest, so your likelihood of missing is higher when you target the limbs--thus endangering innocents downrange.

All that sounds like good rationale for a policy to me. JMO, explaining MO stated earlier.
Loosedhorse is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 11:35 AM   #56
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loosedhorse View Post
No.



However, I DID say (as you quoted) think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is a bad idea. In other words, having a policy that covers 99.999% of cases is not a bad idea. For that last 0.001%, sure, the person who violates the policy can argue that it was the right thing to do in that particular case, and why.



Being against "zero tolerance policies" does not mean being against policies that prohibit certain actions; it does mean that you want each alleged violation of policy is looked at individually, including looking at the presence of any unusual circumstances. In a "zero-tolerance policy", all violations are treated the same, regardless of circumstances.



So: a marksman with great conditions and a still target, who "shoots to wound"--or even better, shoots the gun out of the suspect's hand, just like on TV!--thus saving the suspect's life? Fine by me. She or he can explain the reasons for the policy violation (or the senior officer who authorized the shot can explain why he or she violated policy). Doesn't mean that a policy against such shots is a bad idea.



"Shooting to wound"--if it RESULTS in a stopped, not-mortally-wounded suspect--is not bad at all; I'd be happy to authorize that result!





The problem is that the "technique" of "shooting to wound" does not guarantee that result. Shots fired away from the usual "center mass" target area are LESS likely to stop the attacker quickly; and stopping the attacker is the goal. If the attacker is not stopped quickly because you "shot to wound", now what? If you keep shooting, your probability of getting the result you wanted is decreasing with every shot.



Add to that that shots that shots aimed at legs and arms can hit "more vital" areas (by bad aim in an emergency, or if the suspect moves); and even hits on arms and legs can produce rapidly fatal injury, while STILL not stopping the threat: he's already dead, but he hasn't stopped fighting yet; the public and the police remain at risk as long as he's active.



And of course limbs move more quickly than does the chest, so your likelihood of missing is higher when you target the limbs--thus endangering innocents downrange.



All that sounds like good rationale for a policy to me. JMO, explaining MO stated earlier.


I don't disagree. My policy won't change. I'm shooting center mass. Safer. Maybe for that .001% chance my mind might say...maybe?

But for police procedure? I think they should be allowed to save lives. And case to case basis is the best judge for that kind of situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 11:50 AM   #57
Loosedhorse
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
Quote:
I think they should be allowed to save lives. And case to case basis is the best judge for that kind of situation.
I'm pretty sure I haven't said otherwise.

A policy is not a law. Yet even for laws--like say, the law that makes shooting someone aggravated assault and/or attempted murder--there are recognized exceptions in individual cases. And so we judge each shooting of a person individually, even though we have a law (or several) against it.

So, yes, I am for a policy against warning shots and shooting to wound. I am not for blindly upholding that policy in that rare case an officer violates policy in an unusual circumstance, for good reason, with good results, showing good judgment. Standard "competing harms"/"lesser evil" argument.
Loosedhorse is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 01:57 PM   #58
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
I don't much care about police shooting protocol when I have to defend myself with my gun the only warning shot will be meant to stop the bad guy. I'm still recovering from the ammo shortage and ammo is too scarce to waste shooting a round into the ground. I am sure the BG will fire a warning shot..
I will continue to fire warning shots until the threat is eliminated or I run out of ammo. I have a lot of ammo.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 02:52 PM   #59
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Warning shots, by policy and law, should be limited only to situations where they will effectively help the situation, and a committee of university trained experts must decide whether a warning shot was actually an acceptable response.

We need a nationwide zero tolerance policy against warning and wounding shots.

When these policies are implemented I suggest that anyone who fires a warning shot claim that it was an accidental discharge, and any wound should be excused by claiming that it was just a poor shot that missed lethal organs.

I also suggest that anyone who has an ad should be treated kindly, so as to avoid negative self image, and a wounding deserves a big "A FOR EFFORT!" certificate.


It's a commonly held belief that a shot should not be discharged unless there is imminent risk of death, and that if a situation calls for shooting, it probably calls for Shooting for lethal effect. That might be true for almost all situations.

This question just makes my head hurt.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 02:57 PM   #60
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
This is the kind of nonsense that occurs when ignorant people inject political goals and Hollywood fantasies into real life situations.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 03:48 PM   #61
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
This is the kind of nonsense that occurs when ignorant people inject political goals and Hollywood fantasies into real life situations.
When do they not?, or, at least try??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 4, 2017, 08:25 PM   #62
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
Someone has put me in fear of my life in accordance with state law. I draw and issue a command...they do not comply...I fire! If they are still alive I issue another command.... that is my warning shot. I will utilize deadly force until it is no longer needed. There is no such thing as a fair fight unless you are in a ring with a referee. All other times.. all bets are off.

Violate the confines of my home and I will take extreme umbrage at the violators and the law is on my side unless I violate my right to remain silent.
SHR970 is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 07:05 AM   #63
Loosedhorse
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
Harold Fish...

Perhaps gives us an object lesson on "warning shots". His case has recently come up in another thread: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...=585530&page=5

Apparently, Fish was set upon by Kuenzli's dogs, and perceived a threat. He fired a warning shot.

Sounds reasonable: he was in the woods. There is no evidence that anyone was hurt by the shot. And it worked! The dogs, likely with their ears ringing, ran away.

But...

Kuenzli apparently thought Fish was shooting at his dogs, and advanced to (it was perceived) attack Fish. Fish shot him, claimed self-defense, and was convicted (initially; it took a lot of effort and time to get that changed).

A lot of ink has been spilled on speculations about why the jury convicted Fish. I think it is possible that one factor was that the jury felt the "warning shot", whether or not it was an "aggressive act", instigated Kuenzli's attack; there would have been no approach by Kuenzli without that shot.

We can all remark on the "wisdom" of rushing an obviously armed man with only a screwdriver (now that his dogs had retreated) as a weapon. However, it is likely true that many of us would, in circumstances where we'd think twice about getting violent for self-defense, shed all hesitation if it was our kids being threatened. And some people love their dogs very much.

Anyway, it would be nice to know if Fish regretted that warning shot. Even though it "worked".
Loosedhorse is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 09:07 AM   #64
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Everything about these situations is subject to terrible amounts of ambiguity. You have deficient thinking. After its over liars and biased authorities and dozens of people who have varying agendas pick apart the events in hindsight and decide, not always objectively, what the laws mean and how they must be applied.eventually, this entire process is winnowed down to a jury of inexperienced, not particularly knowledgeable, and maybe even stupid decision makers, who may be either gullible or even predisposed to unfair leanings.

This crew of people are going to be subjected to the manipulation of the smartest, well educated, and cunning people involved in the process, the teams of defense and prosecution. A lot of cases are resolved on nothing but the skills of manipulation that these teams have, how well they lead the decision makers to the desired goal.

Either way, it's okay, because a defense team has rights to maximize their chances of success, and numerous rights of appeals.

Our court system is really ineffective, but the principle is very, very sound. The best way of winning in a system like this is to understand every possible aspect of the law, to use the best possible judgment, to follow those laws carefully, and to avoid complicated situations.

People wind up losing unfairly in every possible aspect of life and lots of them are completely beyond their control. The thing that minimizes unfortunate events like imprisonment on ambiguous convictions is being smart and careful.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 09:14 AM   #65
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Horse, there are a number of people who have even dived into boiling hot springs to save their dogs. There are numerous occasions when people have died or risked dying to save their animals. Charging an armed man without a serious weapon to rescue a dog isn't an outlandish event, people die trying to save animals. A few years ago a guy in a car accelerated to hit a cat, and I blocked him. He slowed and went around.

It wasn't smart, I'll do it again if the same thing happens. It wasn't jumping onto a highway, it was standing between a person who could have stopped. He had a choice. Kill a man on purpose or not. I couldn't let the man get away with "murder", killing a neighbor's cat.
__________________
None.

Last edited by briandg; April 5, 2017 at 09:27 AM.
briandg is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 09:57 AM   #66
Loosedhorse
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
Fair points, Brian.
Loosedhorse is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 10:24 AM   #67
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
You have to have a firm grasp of the concept of crazy before you can have a firm grasp on human thought and behavior.everyone has a number of levels of defective thinking. I know a lot of my own weaknesses and have others that I don't know. Everyone has what is called "the spinach in the teeth"; problems that everyone sees that we aren't aware of.

You really have to expect people to act stupidly, or at least irrationally, right? Poking the bear may result in injury, yet we still poke that 400 pound carnivore.

A few of my problems are pessimism, antisocial thinking, and serious lack of faith in humanity, as well as a lack of sympathy or patience with dumb people. I read about stupid accidents, and I tend to scream out loud.

Yep, I'm defective that way.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 10:33 AM   #68
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
I think that if a police officer (or citizen) pulls a life or death defense tool, the situation has moved beyond the realm of "controllable."
Firing a warning shot is not going to have predictable results, so the officer/citizen would be injecting more Xfactor into an environment that already is in flux. I'm not a fan of the free and easy use of deadly force by the police, but I think that creating chaos is the opposite of the police officer's job description. For a civilian, there would be a legal accounting of for that warning shot, so that seems like a losing proposition.
my 2c.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 03:02 PM   #69
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
There is a major difference between police and civilian carry. In the civilian world if you had the time and ability to fire a warning shot I would HIGHLY question if you had the prerequisite dangers required to pull the trigger in the first place.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 04:49 PM   #70
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
And there you have it. This man is a highly intelligent and educated expert with a strong history in this area. He's going to vote his conscience, I know that. It's likely that if he sits on a jury and sees something stupid that clearly violates the involved statutes he's not going to vote to acquit. Probably, I guess.

Lots of other people here will think more charitably and lean towards acquittal because of a certain amount of sympathy towards a peer.

Just for the record, I'd be disinclined to acquit if the situation showed that the person violated the laws clearly, even if it seemed like an "innocent lapse in judgment".
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old April 5, 2017, 07:28 PM   #71
rodfac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
If it comes out of the barrel of a gun, it IS DEADLY FORCE. And we, as citizens are only justified in using deadly force if we honestly believe no other option will stop the threat.
This is taught in every defensive class I've taken, and is gospel to my way of thinking. It's my opinion that our court and legal system views it the same way. Well said 44 AMP. Best regards, Rod
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73.
rodfac is offline  
Old April 6, 2017, 01:57 PM   #72
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
Fudd that I am, I would like warning shots to be authorized by statute.
Shoot to wound ? Would that we were all so good.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old April 6, 2017, 03:11 PM   #73
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
It is possible that "warning shots" are legal in many states, but still not a good idea, imo.

In my state, at least, this could be charged under several laws, regardless of any other statutes, depending upon your own legal jurisdiction and local laws.

Charges that could be filed are assault with a deadly weapon; unless there is a solid case of self defense, assault is partly defined as threatening a person with injury. You could also be charged with brandishing. Without clear justification, drawing a weapon and firing a round to threaten the other person certainly qualifies. At the very lowest level of consequences would be the simple city ordinance that most places have that forbids discharging a gun in any unregulated place.

Having a legal right to fire a warning shot is probably covered in many stand your ground and castle laws, situations n which lethal force is authorized. Without the protection of such laws or any other laws, local or state laws can result in their charges, possibly even reckless endangerment.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old April 6, 2017, 03:17 PM   #74
Targa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
There is a major difference between police and civilian carry. In the civilian world if you had the time and ability to fire a warning shot I would HIGHLY question if you had the prerequisite dangers required to pull the trigger in the first place.
No sir, not a difference at all. Your absolutely correct in your statement but that would apply to police as well.
Targa is offline  
Old April 6, 2017, 03:41 PM   #75
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
Police can shoot to stop a violent felon who is running away because they protect society as a whole. A citizen must disengage as soon as the immediate threat is over.
Where would you recommend this warning shot be placed, so as not to endanger the general public?

My warning shot would likely be mid chest.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12943 seconds with 8 queries