Warning Shots??? Shooting to Wound???

[Pahoo]

Police are sworn to protect and serve. They can't do that if we tie their hands.

A local LEO friend, just resigned from the force. He stated that it's getting meaner out there and new policies are getting worse. Sad part is that he really liked being a cop but having a hard time, watching his back as well as in-house "stuff". ....

Be Safe !!!

[James K]

Remember that the folks at NPR (and the press in general) know nothing about guns or shooting except what they see in the movies or what is written by equally ignorant "journalists." Or what is dictated to them by "editorial policy", almost always extremely anti-gun and strongly left wing, a view that makes every armed thug a hero, and the gun carrying citizen a vicious, depraved murderer.

If there was ever a time when police were on the side of the armed citizen, this is not it. You may believe that if you kill or wound in self-defense, the cops will be on your side. Sure. And people who believe that could have time, lots of time, to re-think the idea. That is, if an "officer friendly" doesn't blow you away before you get a chance to explain that you can't drop your brand new $10,000 pistol on that dirty street.

Jim

[Double Naught Spy]

If police are going to use warning shots, I would prefer that they be trained in how to do it properly than not trained.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by james k

That is, if an "officer friendly" doesn't blow you away before you get a chance to explain that you can't drop your brand new $10,000 pistol on that dirty street.

If Officer Friendly is telling you to drop your gun and you don't, you deserve to get blown away, I don't care if it's a gold plated, diamond encrusted, super rare very first gun Samuel Colt ever made.

[TXAZ]

Lots of issues here:

1) Where is the warning shot supposed to go? In Mobeetie Texas, not a big deal, not many people, animals or critical (or any) infrastructure to hit. In most suburban and urban environments, everything OTHER than the target is likely an expensive repair / lawsuit / tragedy.

2) What is the proficiency level of the shooting officer? It sounds like most eastern seaboard cops don't get enough range time to credibly, safely and precisely place a warning shot into the dirt or other inert material, all under stress.

3) When is a warning shot appropriate and what is the criteria for that warning shot vs. lethal and can they show they met that criteria? (Can the officer show he/she went through the "20 check points of department policy for a warning shot"? or whatever it is. If that's not real clear, the officer and their department are going to look pretty bad in court.

4) If the bad guy has a gun, why is the officer wasting a shot and time and overtly notifying the bad guy it's "game on".

The only positive I see here is fertile ground for lawsuits.

[Loosedhorse]

From the article:

"Why not give the officers more tools?" Cunningham says.

Because having more choices to make both slows down the response, and gives you more possible mistakes to make. There is a lot to the KISS principle, especially in a deadly-force threat situation.

Originally Posted by James K

Remember that the folks at NPR (and the press in general) know nothing about guns or shooting except...

...Except they hate them both?

And that the 2nd Amendment's protection of private gun ownership is nothing more than a rumor started in 2008 by the "gun lobby", FOX News and a few boo-scary conservatives like Newt Gingrich and the Koch Bros.?

(Not meaning to put words in your mouth; those words are the way I might have finished your sentence--my opinion.)

[TailGator]

Lots of good arguments here against the policy, but the first chronologically, before a trigger is pulled, is to ask, "What will a warning shot do that the sight of a badge and uniform will not?" Maybe an LEO would feel differently, but I don't see a warning shot as something that will change a BG's mind about complying. They already know that LEOs are armed. Having to prove the gun is loaded seems pretty stupid, even before you start thinking about where the bullet is going to go.

[K_Mac]

If police are going to use warning shots, I would prefer that they be trained in how to do it properly than not trained.

As already asked here a couple of times how does​ one train to do this? There will be some who will insist that warning shots and shooting to wound is possible with "proper" training. There is no proper training for this, and pretending there is puts lives at risk.

The consequences of requiring a less than than lethal response would be dire for police. For armed civilians​ it would make surviving a lethal encounter and​ then making the case that lethal force was justified all the more difficult. I think an argument could be made that these are the real goals of this nonsense.

[Lohman446]

Where exactly are they going to shoe-horn in the "warning shot" or "shooting to wound"?

Obviously its below deadly force.

Is it above or below the use of the taser? Mace? Bean bags? A "less-lethal" FN303 launcher?

Does an officer have to brandish his firearm, fire a warning shot, switch to the taser, attempt to use mace, and then shoot to wound?

[44 AMP]

"What will a warning shot do that the sight of a badge and uniform will not?" Maybe an LEO would feel differently, but I don't see a warning shot as something that will change a BG's mind about complying. They already know that LEOs are armed. Having to prove the gun is loaded seems pretty stupid,

It seems kind of stupid, but "smart" people aren't the ones the cops are holding at gunpoint, now are they??

Part of the issue is that criminals, don't always co-operate. And, even though a gun is pointed at them, some refuse to believe they will be shot, until, unless something ELSE convinces them.

One sees it often in today's popular fiction onscreen, where the (usually) bad guy points a gun, and orders people to do things, and they meekly obey, UNTIL he tells them to do something they refuse to do, and THEN, (and only then) does the bad guy rack the slide, or cock the hammer, in what, no doubt, directors consider dramatic fashion, to show that they are "serious".

Sound stupid? it is. But real life can be equally stupid.

Some decades ago, back when the police were still using DA revolvers, Florida began having an increase in accidental police shootings. It seems that a certain portion of the thuggery was displaying their machismo (bravdo? what ever the proper word is), by refusing to obey police commands, even at gun point, UNTIL the officer cocked his weapon, proving he was "serious". A cocked DA revolver increased the likelihood of an accidental discharge.

One major dept (Miami, if I remember right) had their revolvers converted to DA only, as a result of this.

As a citizen facing a threat, what do you do if the bad guy doesn't believe you will actually shoot? At that point, many would think a warning shot is the right thing to do, to convince your attacker that you will shoot. And, it does this, but it doesn't convince the truly determined that you will shoot THEM. It MIGHT, but there's no counting on that, and its quite possible that your will have to shoot them, DESPITE a warning shot.

[SocialAnarchist]

Not a chance. If deadly force is required you shoot to stop the attacker and that means essentially shooting in areas likely to cause fatal wounds.

Where exactly are the officers expected to place these warning shots?

[ShootistPRS]

SocialAnarchist Not a chance. If deadly force is required you shoot to stop the attacker and that means essentially shooting in areas likely to cause fatal wounds.

Where exactly are the officers expected to place these warning shots?

Two mid chest and one in the head.
After firing his three warning shots the purp knows he is serious, and so do his accomplices.

[OldMarksman]

Where exactly are they going to shoe-horn in the "warning shot" or "shooting to wound"?

Obviously its below deadly force.

Is it above or below the use of the taser? Mace? Bean bags? A "less-lethal" FN303 launcher?

Does an officer have to brandish his firearm, fire a warning shot, switch to the taser, attempt to use mace, and then shoot to wound?

The proposed policy provides for warning shots only when deadly force would be justified.

The officer does not "have" to do anything. The policy would permit warning shots.

[Loosedhorse]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

One major dept (Miami, if I remember right) had their revolvers converted to DA only...

Yes: the Metro-Dade Police in Miami did that, after the Alvarez-Johnson shooting.

The shooting led to riots, then to Officer Alvarez's prosecution for manslaughter, then to his acquittal, and then to more riots protesting his acquittal. Alvarez never said he cocked his gun, but the prosecutor (some gal named Janet Reno) got the grand jury to indict by claiming that since the gun could be cocked, Alvarez must have cocked it, and then the gun, in a "hair-trigger" condition, went off by accident.

Miami converted their revolvers between the 1982 shooting and the 1984 trial. I think LAPD did the same even earlier, probably 1971, after several less publicized (alleged and/or real) incidents of suspects getting shot because officers had NDs after cocking their revolvers.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/31/us...i-officer.html
http://www.royblack.com/files/Alvarez.pdf
https://americanhandgunner.com/under...rigger-issues/

[Deaf Smith]

I find shooting for the heart acts both as a 'warning' and as a 'wound'.

Deaf

[James K]

Some recent incidents should make us aware that in this "age of the twitter" nothing goes unrecorded and nothing ever goes away. That is both good and bad, and there is the corollary that anything recorded can be edited to prove anything the editor wants. You didn't shoot Abe Lincoln? Give some photo experts a few cell phone pictures of your last range session, and I they will have you convinced that you shot old Abe in 1865 with your trusty .44 Magnum.

Jim

[TailGator]

It seems kind of stupid, but "smart" people aren't the ones the cops are holding at gunpoint, now are they??

OK, that gave me a grin in the middle of a serious subject. Good points in your post. But you aren't in favor of warning shots, are you?

[Chris Karma]

the only answer I can come up with is defunding NPR.
a useless waste of my tax dollar.

even where I live, in AZ in a desert full of sand where it would be fine to shoot into a berm of dirt - warning shots are just something stupid people do

[b.thomas]

I won't even get into the warning shot [email protected]tly dumb idea!

But What officer has the training and talent (while under stress), to even shoot to wound a bad guy. Hard enough to get a decent shot just to stop a BG, let alone to just wound him?? Really dumb ideas............both!

[44 AMP]

But you aren't in favor of warning shots, are you?

The only way I would fire a warning shot would be if I missed.

Which, of course, is entirely possible, but it would not be my intention.

[random guy]

Deaf Smith wrote: I find shooting for the heart acts both as a 'warning' and as a 'wound'.

"Stop or the next one is going in your head". Thud

The warning shot proposal seems rarely usable and ill-advised even then. Can we find room on a duty belt for a blank firing pistol? Good thing a lot of our cops are ex-military because they are humping a ridiculous load around.

[briandg]

Pretending that a warning shot will make things any better for police officers faced with a deadly situation is sinful. Shooting someone is already fraught with trouble for officers, firing warning shots or shooting to wound is going to ensure that every police shooting will be dissected to the atomic level. Changing the policies to address when to warn or wound will make every officer struggle with the decision, and that time wasted will not be helpful. An assailant with drawn gun might take advantage of a warning shot.

For npr to address this as a potential means of ending the riots and hate is ludicrous. All it will do is make both decision and review even more difficult, and increase the confusion among the public about right and wrong. Even if the officer is facing an active shooter and imminent death, drawing and firing his firearm will still be an acceptable reason to lie and agitate.

[briandg]

The constant bombardment of the public by stupid movies that portray long standoffs just make the world a stupider and more dangerous place.

We always want the bad guy to draw first or fire the first round, it shows that the cop is a hero, and removes all ambiguity.

Did you know that people actually believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, alien, Bigfoot, and that the earth is flat? Some people also believe that when and why a cop fires a shot is everyone's business, and that no matter how stupid, uninformed, biased an individual is, that individual's beliefs are even more important than factual assessment.

[44 AMP]

The constant bombardment of the public by stupid movies.... just make the world a stupider and more dangerous place.

Well, the people who watch and believe its real/the right thing to do, certainly do make the world a stupider place.

REQUIRING cops to fire a "warning shot"? Considering the number of reports I have seen about cops (particularly big city cops) firing a couple dozen or more shots and only getting a few hits (often only wounding hits) the idea of requiring a warning shot seems kind of superfluous.

Also, pretty soon, the word will get around, and every bad guy will "know" they cops are required to miss, on their first shot. Might that change their behavior, somewhat?

Also, are you going to require every cop to do this? If there's two cops are two warning shots required?? (one from each???)

Here's a thought. mount a bullet trap to each police vehicle. That way, as each officer exits the vehicle, he can fire a "warning shot" into the bullet trap, providing the required "warning", without endangering the public, and also function testing their firearm....

OR...

why not just require the police to toss a flash bang stun grenade out of their cruiser window when they arrive at a crime scene??? That way, everyone will know the cops are there, and are armed...because, after all, lights and sirens just aren't enough anymore, ....are they??

Firing a shot across the bow of a ship to show you are serious is a long standing naval tradition. But what works for ships at sea isn't the right thing for thugs on the street, or worse, in your home...

[FireForged]

firing warning shots is a very good way to harm bystanders and other innocent people. Its a stuipid idea.

If you don't need to use deadly force, don't! its as simply as that. A firearm is not a fog horn or something to be used as an exclamation point.