Warning shots poised for a comeback?

Saw the article, Interesting, only in Letal situations, I would thik if it's letal then a warning shot is a wasted shot? Ayoob says usually it make the suspect run faster in real life.

Well it would not normally make the suspect run any different if still only allowed when lethal force is justified. If the suspect is running away especially if not clearly armed then lethal force is generally not justified, and if not justified then it sounds like a warning shot is not allowed either.
But if it was allowed it likely would make someone running away run faster by kicking their adrenaline into overdrive if they think someone is trying to kill them.


I don't think there should always be a complete ban, but I also think it could lead to unrealistic expectations from the public and questions why they didn't try a warning shot in situations where officers went straight to lethal force.
With a knife or other contact weapon suspect that technically warrants deadly force if you already have your gun out and they are at a distance then the option to make it clear they are going to be shot if they continue may be a nice option on the table in some standoffs.


To insure they fire in a safe direction, something that would be a challenge in a large metropolis, they may need to look away from the threat that is currently justifying lethal force, putting them at greater risk.
Straight up for light bullets is generally not too dangerous absent high rise buildings, but not straight up when firing into the air is easy to do in a tense situation and an arc allows that bullet to come down with lethal wounding potential a long distance away. Up and straight up are not the same thing. Heavy bullets even shot straight up and just falling with the weight of gravity could do some damage. A shotgun slug falling straight down just with gravity alone could be fatal. An ounce of lead falling from up high could crack your skull.
The average officer is unlikely to understand ballistics enough for this, though they will typically be using a handgun (and even there a light 9mm vs a heavy .45 ACP can make a big difference in how much momentum that falling projectile has.)

Unless we go back to the days of being allowed to shoot fleeing violent felons to prevent escape, then I think warning shots would not be a good idea in most situations. In those situations accompanied by verbal warnings so they knew it was intentional and not just a miss I think it would make many suspects stop in their tracks and either give up or engage officers. But those days are long gone.

All shots are deadly force. Warning shots can draw fire to you. I wouldn't waste ammo. Either you have the justification for deadly force, or you do not.
In the police community, the (30 year old) case law that prohibits warning shots, were the result of unintended injuries, and death from discharging shots as warning shots, by officers . As I recall, one was a ricochet from a streetlamp that killed the offender, the other was a warning shot fired up, that hit a woman who was looking out of her apartment window.

Would you really want to be on the hook for a situation like this?

It has long been standing practice in law enforcement and force protection training circles that warning shots are not fired under any reason and that all fire is aimed and controlled. The groundbreaking piece of case law that brought this about was Jones v. Wittenberg University, 534 F.2d 1203 (6th Cir. 1976) in which a University Police Officer unintentionally struck a student with a warning shot. It is usually found that warning shots do not halt activity and in turn may bring aimed fire back to your own location from a suspect that was not known to be armed at the time.

The department policy for the departments I've worked in, and policy of every other law enforcement agency with which I'm familiar, specifically prohibits warning shots.

The only place for warning shots is a prison setting, where tower officers overseeing recreation yards and walkways have a designated area (typically a little sandbox) to fire warning shots into ...

I highly doubt that we'll see "warning shots" making a comeback anytime soon, if ever. There is no reason.

From a tactical viewpoint, warning shots may make sense in some circumstances:

1. In an area with acoustic gunshot detection, a warning shot will summon additional assistance without needing to use a free hand.
2. When the imminent attack is from an animal rather than a human. Animals understand warning shots much better than a drawn gun or verbal warning. They are much more likely to cease and desist threatening behavior and flee. One may not be eager to shoot an endangered species or a high-value animal.
3. In a home invasion scenario, you may know with high confidence that an intruder has entered the home without being able to get a clear shot. A warning shot may be the most effective way to motivate them to flee quickly.
4. Other situations where no clear shot is available, but deadly force is justified, and motivating the aggressor(s) to flee is a desirable outcome.
5. As cover fire or a distraction.
6. When outnumbered, a well-placed shot taking out the first aggressor effectively serves as a warning shot for the others. If they make haste in their retreat, the warning may prevent deadly force being used against them. Most would argue to first shoot the aggressor who poses the greatest and most imminent threat. But there may be situations where it is better to first shoot the aggressor whose demise will most likely demotivate the others.

Of course, choosing a safe direction is always the responsibility of the shooter.

One need not be a fan of warning shots to see that there may be circumstances where they are a reasonable tactical choice.

Mas once said a warning shot was a waste of a precious cartridge and a precious second. I agree. Certainly there might be a rare occasion to use one, but very, very rarely. Old Dog, towers nowadays where I work no longer have those sand traps, so there are no safe places for warning shots. Warning shots now are 12 gauge muzzle blast "distraction devices".

We used warning shots in the sandbox, but their use was exceedingly rare and always fraught with risk as well. I also believe there is occasion to use them CONUS, but you can open up pandoras box legally when you do. It better make sense when the cops show up.

My agencies' policy was absolutely no warning shots. Aside from the legal ramifications, we worked in an urban environment, no safe place to discharge a weapon. Maybe in the country a cop could fire a shot into the dirt, but in a city, there's no guarantee you could find a place that wasn't paved, and shots into the air can come down with lethal effect blocks away.

We were even prohibited from putting animals down, worry was a ricochet off the pavement.

No shots could be fired at a vehicle being used as a weapon unless there were shots being fired from the vehicle.

I don't generally think warning shots are a good idea in most situations. However, they have been shown to work in numerous situation as well. So the idea isn't completely without merit. If the police are going to use warning shots, then having them trained into how to make warning shots that are appropriate and safer is a good idea.

It's the IACP. A political organization. I'd recommend ignoring their advice on this, even if it did become department policy.
Justification?

The new policy still sets strict conditions for warning shots:

1. The use of deadly force is justified;

2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and

3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.

Click to expand...

#1 negates the reasoning behind #'s 2 and 3. If deadly force is justified, it is justified. If pointing a weapon at someone isn't reducing the need for deadly force, pointing it away from them and firing will?

That said, there are situations where they could be used safely, but those are rare. I agree with Double Naught, having the training on how to do so puts another tool in the toolbox. The downside of this will be if it becomes policy widely, it will place another weapon in the hands of lawyers and civilian review boards. Not all lawyers are as firearms-savvy as Frank and Spats McGee. And these same standards will be imposed on civilian carriers in the courtroom also.

Prosecuting Attorney:"Why didn't you fire a warning shot first? The Police do!"

CCW'r : "Um, I didn't want a hole in my roof?"

I think Mas sums it up best at the end of the article:

That's not a logic most trainers accept, but firearms trainer Ayoob does worry that allowing warning shots "opens a can of worms." The rules allowing police to use deadly force are clear: If an officer reasonably perceives someone to be an imminent mortal threat, the officer is allowed to shoot. Adding the possibility of warning shots to that decision-making process could confuse things.

"If a danger ipso facto is that immediate, why are we taking our eyes off the threat and firing a warning shot?" he asks. "If deadly force is justified, deadly force should probably be applied."

Click to expand...

entropy said:

Justification?

#1 negates the reasoning behind #'s 2 and 3. If deadly force is justified, it is justified. If pointing a weapon at someone isn't reducing the need for deadly force, pointing it away from them and firing will?

Click to expand...

I disagree. The justification of deadly force does not always mean it is the best option. I have tremendous respect for officers who find another way to resolve a lethal force encounter even after the threshold justifying the use of deadly force is clearly reached. Lots of great police officers go out of their way and risk their own lives not to contribute to suicide by cop situations, for example. There are also possible mistaken identity situations when a police officer is pursuing a suspect and encounters an armed home owner. If I was the home owner, I'd kinda like a warning shot in these situations. How about you?

In many situations, the best tactical solution IS to use deadly force as soon as it is justified. But in other situations, it may not be. One should also consider that the "reasonable fear" justification has room for doubt in many cases.

I suspect one reason for the widespread policies against "warning shots" is legal rather than tactical: any time shots are fired departments want the shooters to be sure and frame the justification in terms of using deadly force. A miss should be framed as a missed attempt to shoot to incapacitate rather than as a "warning shot." The legal liabilities and optics of "warning shots" have proved problematic over time.

The language requiring the same justification for warning shots as deadly force ensures that shooters will tend to frame the justification in terms of deadly force.

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who have fired "warning shots", especially non-LEOs, never actually intended to fire such a shot. They fire at an aggressor, miss, then later tell police that they fired a "warning shot" because they're afraid of being potentially prosecuted for actually trying to shoot another person. In their minds, having fired a warning shot is more "okay."

I agree that there are a few situations, such as those already itemized here in post 6 by Berger.Fan222, in which a warning shot might be prudent.

Berger.Fan222 said:

There are also possible mistaken identity situations when a police officer is pursuing a suspect and encounters an armed home owner. If I was the home owner, I'd kinda like a warning shot in these situations. How about you?

Click to expand...

If I were an armed home owner pointing a gun at a cop, I would expect to be shot.

I too suppose that many warning shots have actually been misses. Look at the hit probability stats compiled over the years. They show a miss to be a likely outcome. But, if the miss made the bad guy knock off what he was doing that caused you to shoot at him in the first place, all's well that ends well.

I don't know that this IACP policy recommendation is going to get traction beyond the echo chamber phase. For decades the advice has been not to try to warn with gunshots, for reasons the NPR story insufficiently delves into.

entropy said:

If I were an armed home owner pointing a gun at a cop, I would expect to be shot.

Click to expand...

And if he had not identified himself?

The PDF document is at
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_Force.pdf
The proposal is five pages long.

Section III Definitions includes "Warning Shot: Discharge of a firearm
for the purpose of compelling compliance from an individual, but not intended to cause physical injury."
Section IV. PROCEDURES
. . . .
D. Use of Deadly Force
. . . .
3. Deadly Force Restrictions
a. Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat only to themselves or property.
b. Warning shots are inherently dangerous. Therefore, a warning shot must have a defined target and shall not be fired unless
(1) the use of deadly force is justified;
(2) the warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and
(3) the officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.
. . . .
I'll bet that primary source (IACP) is not what the secondary source (NPR) gave readers the impression it was.

ADDED: In fact. Contributing Organizations listed on the back page is several more than IACP.

JeffG said:

All shots are deadly force. Warning shots can draw fire to you. I wouldn't waste ammo. Either you have the justification for deadly force, or you do not.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. And a warning shot is proof you DID NOT have justification for deadly force -- if you did, you wouldn't waste the time and ammo, because you would be in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm.

Berger.fan222 writes:

...a police officer is pursuing a suspect and encounters an armed home owner. If I was the home owner, I'd kinda like a warning shot in these situations.

Click to expand...

Even more, I'd appreciate a "drop the gun!" command first. I'd make sure then that no shot, warning or otherwise, was necessary after that.

All I know is, anyone who thinks there might be an occasion for a "warning shot" has never had to chase a fleeing felon, much less an armed fleeing felon ...

Or been faced with someone intent on doing bad things to them.

If a shot can reasonably be fired, then that shot needs to take effect to stop an action. In the old days, warning shots were supposedly used to stop fleeing criminals with the idea the shot would scare them into stopping. Currently, you generally can't shoot at fleeing criminals, so I don't see any place for warning shots.

Berger.Fan222 said:

And if he had not identified himself?

Click to expand...

Granted, I was thinking uniformed.... but plainclothes usually have ID; Badge, Vest, pull-down panel, etc.
I agree with MedWheeler, I'd expect a loud, command voice "DROP THE GUN!" first.......and I would comply.
If they were plainclothes, pointing a gun at me, and not identifying themselves, and I did not recognize them as a plainclothes LEO-yes I'd probably shoot. I believe that's what a reasonable person in that situation would do. I don't take kindly to folks pointing guns at me without a very good reason. And I live my life in such a manner that LEO's should have no reason to do so.

Like most veteran cops (I'm long retired) I was taught that "warning shots" were strictly verboten... and years of experience on the street backed up that mandate (only fired one shot in 22 years but had the opportunity for a "warning shot" too many times to count...). Very glad that I never fired a warning shot (with hands on arrests for every crime there is from murder all the way down to the minor stuff - many of those situations involved armed individuals as well...). I've also been the supervisor in charge on scenes where one officer or other attempted to justify their mis-use of a firearm in a high stress situation (fortunately for all concerned their shots missed the mark...). The only policy that makes sense is that no one should discharge a weapon unless they're clearly justified in using deadly force, period. Any other "more liberal" policy invites bad outcomes - and we already have more than enough of those as it is....

When I first heard of the IACP's new recommendation I was immediately reminded of the endless meetings I was at where folks with absolutely no hands on experience pontificated about practical matters of great consequence -and did their best to require officers on the street to follow their concepts. My guess is that this will pass since there are just too many opportunities for very bad outcomes involving firearms if this "policy" becomes wide spread.

Warning shots are not generally a good idea.

I know of one incident where it worked. An off duty cop was approached by 4 guys out a club in the parking lot. These 4 guys thought he was someone who tried to pick a fight with one of them. Clearly a disparity of force situation and a lack of witnesses to back up the cop if he shot one of them. The cop pulled his 38 and identified himself. The 4 guys didn't believe him and one even said "that's not a real gun, let's get him". They started to advance and the cop cranked a round off into a partially filled dumpster he was standing by. The 4 guys took off. The other options the cop had was to shoot one of them or get his ass kicked. I think he chose the correct one in this case.

There are rare times a warning shot is justified. I think it was in this case.