Need a reason to NOT fire a warning shot?

[DeepSouth]

I'm always amazed at the people that will tell about the time they fired a warning shot, or tell of circumstances when they would fire a warning shot. IMO it's almost always a terrible idea, I can't think of a case (at the moment) where it would be appropriate, or legal for that matter.

A man who said he was firing a warning shot and didn't mean to kill anyone was convicted today of capital murder in Limestone County Circuit Court, according to District Attorney Brian T. Jones.

Moyers told authorities at the time of the shooting that he fired the shot that killed Hydrick but that he intended it as a warning, according to Limestone County Sheriff Mike Blakely.

Link:

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/05/joel_moyers_convicted_of_capit.html

 

[MEHavey]

From the link:
Moyers told authorities at the time of the shooting that he fired the shot that
killed Hydrick but that he intended it as a warning, ...Hydrick was riding in the
passenger seat of a truck driven by his brother, Ryan.

The men were riding along Fennel Road, where Moyers was living at the time
in a mobile home owned by his mother, after [Hyrick & his brother had been]
attending a family event nearby.

Blakely said at the time the bullet went through the truck's tailgate, through
the back of the front seat.

Hardly the classic face-to-face "warning shot"
More like a "I'll show you" shooting at a vehicle driving away

Here's "the rest of the story"
http://www.waff.com/story/19672294/suspect-charged-with-murder-in-limestone-co-shooting

 

[C0untZer0]

I don't think this story is an argument against warning shots as much as it is an argument against trying to use the "warning shot" as a legal defense.

 

[MEHavey]

This case is about shooting at a car driving away from you,
whose occupants have presented no threat to you,
just to "scare" them away.

It has nothing to do w/ "warning shot" as normally discussed.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Once you meet all the legal justifications for the use of lethal force and have a safe direction to fire a warning shot, warning shots can be safe and effective. The problem is that people are often stupid in their choice of firing warning shots.

I personally think they are a bad idea because they demonstrate a willingness to not use lethal force against a human and give your opposition a chance to kill you, but the fact of the matter is that warning shots can and have been used legally and effectively in the past by people.

 

[manithree]

Not advocating warning shots

Firing any shot (warning or not) when you're not under immediate threat of grave bodily harm is a really bad idea. Just because the defendant says it was a warning shot doesn't mean it really was, and it his claim sounds really fishy to me.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/09/arrest_made_in_limestone_fatal.html#incart_story_package

I don't think the moral of this story is that warning shots are always a bad idea in self defense cases. The real moral of this story is that claiming "I didn't mean to" isn't going to get you off of a murder charge.

I wouldn't advise anybody to fire a warning shot even when they are legally justified in pulling the trigger, but it has worked out in a few cases.

http://www.chicoer.com/general-news/20110803/chico-couple-awaken-to-find-intruder-in-bedroom

http://www.guns.com/2013/11/12/smal...ural-justice-stops-gun-wielding-robber-video/

But, those are the exception, not the rule.

Florida has even made warning shots legal in some cases:
http://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-p...terpretation-of-floridas-new-warning-shot-law

 

[DeepSouth]

This case is about shooting at a car driving away from you,
whose occupants have presented no threat to you,
just to "scare" them away.

It has nothing to do w/ "warning shot" as normally discussed.

While that statement is 100% correct and I completely agree, I have heard many, many people refer to such "shots" as warning shots. I know someone who shot out a rear window with a .410 because the driver had swerved at his dog, I know this guy and I fully believe he didn't intend to harm anyone, when he talks about it he say "the warning shot shattered out his back window"

Anyway, my point is people define "warning shot" differently. And as in this case, some peoples warning shots are pointed directly at someone, or their vehicle and they never think about the very real possibility of hitting someone.
Again, your right "as normally discussed" here this is not the standard warning shot, it is however normally discussed by many people I personally know.

 

[MedWheeler]

I think that, in most of these cases, there was no intended "warning shot" initially; the defendant(s) actually shoot at, or in the direction of, their foes, then resort to the "warning shot" claim upon contact by police in the (frequently-mistaken) belief that it is a better defense.

What one tells the police during the investigation, especially regarding confessions, has far more potential to hang one than the same uttered in a plea deal later. Plea deals are all about negotiation. Confessions prior to a plea deal only help seal the prosecution's case, and make for an even harder time at plea dealing.

 

[HighExpert]

I have always practiced and taught that you don't display your weapon until it will be used and when you aim, you shoot. If you don't need to shoot, you don't threaten with a gun or fire warning shots.

 

[Sunray]

A "warning shot" as normally discussed ends up somewhere. You are responsible for where that is.
A "warning shot" as normally discussed usually isn't at a vehicle either.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Need a reason to NOT fire a warning shot

Where will the warnings shot land?

Will the warnee think you are shooting at them and shoot back?

Will the warning shot cause panic in bystanders?

Will another person think you are trying to murder someone and try to intervene?

99.9 percent of the time a warning shot is a bad idea.

Deaf

 

[mgkdrgn]

1) Unless you fire it into the ground at your feet, you don't know where it is going to go.

2) If you do #1, you might just shoot yourself in the foot.

3) If you do have to "engage", you are now down one round.

 

[Jim K]

I know of a man who fired a "warning shot" into the ground about four feet in front of his own foot. The shot was not aimed at anyone and the shooter could not reasonably be considered as intending to harm anyone. But it had the effect of showing that the shooter, who was on his own property and facing a drunken and dangerous intruder, was armed and would fire. The intruder left, cursing and shouting insults, but he left. So the warning shot did what it was intended to do; I doubt merely displaying the gun or stating that he had one would have had the same effect.

No police were involved, and no legal action resulted.

Jim

 

[Old Dog]

Unless one is a tower officer in a prison, there's never a reason for a warning shot.

My department's policy prohibits warning shots.

Think about it: if the sight of a firearm coming out of the holster isn't enough of a warning, firing a shot that conceivably could hit an innocent, either directly or by ricochet, probably isn't going to work either ... Rules 2 and 4 are always applicable.

A deadly force situation is a deadly force situation. If the simple display of a gun and subsequent verbal warnings don't stop the actions of a subject, then one would posit the only shot forthcoming should be aimed center of mass.

 

[strambo]

I'm loath to use the word "never" but warning shots come pretty close to me using that word.

Perhaps in the case in the OP the moron did intend it as a warning to not come back, he just had no clue about the lawful use of deadly force or a proper appreciation of the potential consequences of discharging a firearm. I mean, he's seen warning shots fired to run off trespassers hundreds if not thousands of times on TV/movies and nobody got hurt.

 

[Snejdarek]

In my country, courts always view more favorably defenders that made it clear to the attacker what the stakes are before firing into him. Obviously, there are situations where there is no other way than quick draw followed by even quicker double tap, but strictly from legal point of view, you are always better off when you can show that the attacker actually himself basically chose to run into the flying bullets, not only into yourself.

Also, we have obligatory licensing (although shall issue) that also includes background checks. So while law-abiding citizens usually carry lead, low-lives often carry only mace guns. That is also why presenting gun itself might be misconstrued as not being the "real deal", up until the bullet hits the ground.

That being said, the OP's scenario of shooting on evading vehicle that presents no imminent or ongoing threat would not be considered "warning shot" in any jurisdiction on earth.

 

[besafe2]

First thing I was taught as a leo in early 70's when we started fire arms training. "There is no such thing as a warning shot ". I live by that today.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

First of all, a gun is NOT a telephone, a radio, a newspaper, or any other means of communication. To try to use it to "send a message" is a serious mistake.

Secondly, YOU may say you intended to warn your opponent -- a good prosecutor will say you tried to kill him and missed.

Third, firing a shot is using deadly force -- regardless of you intentions. And when you say you intended it as a warning, you ADMIT you did not have justification for using deadly force.

Fourth, you are responsible for that bullet -- if it hits a child in the next block or ricochets off the pavement and kills a bystander, YOU are responsible.

 

[orionengnr]

I think Col. Cooper covered that about 30 years ago, with Rule #2.

 

[MEHavey]

^^^ +1 ^^^

RULE II:
Never Let The Muzzle Cover Anything You Are Not Willing To Destroy
http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html

 

[g.willikers]

Sometimes a warning shot does, indeed, work as intended.
A big scare and nobody is hurt.
There was a peeping tom peering in windows in a older neighborhood, near where we used to live.
And old lady saw the guy through the window, grabbed her trusty revolver and confronted the guy outside.
Yeah, it's a no no, but she didn't know that.
The guy starts mouthing off to her, figuring her for an easily intimidated old lady.
Without another word, she puts a round into the dirt, between his legs.
That neighborhood never saw the creep ever again.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

In a situation where use of lethal force is justifiable, less than lethal use of a lethal weapon can be justifiable. (My sister got no criticism from the cops or courts for scaring off a home invader without shooting.) But, in the case of the opening post, lethal force was not justified period, so how "warning shot" could be used as a defense escapes me.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Sometimes a warning shot does, indeed, work as intended.
A big scare and nobody is hurt.
There was a peeping tom peering in windows in a older neighborhood, near where we used to live.
And old lady saw the guy through the window, grabbed her trusty revolver and confronted the guy outside.
Yeah, it's a no no, but she didn't know that.
The guy starts mouthing off to her, figuring her for an easily intimidated old lady.
Without another word, she puts a round into the dirt, between his legs.
That neighborhood never saw the creep ever again.

Great story!

(Not prejudiced or anything but I LOVE stories about tough old ladies!)

 

[Tirod]

The most notorious warning shot locally was a rural property owner who put some rounds down range at a truck with drunken teenagers out bashing mailboxes. One died. Long court trial. He got off - and nobody shoots at the dumb kids anymore. Killing one wasn't the intent, clearly proven in trial, but it was exactly that thing we worry about. The trial itself was extremely punitive in terms of personal costs.

Most showdowns where the potential comes up seem to be close range personal confrontations where the aggressor isn't getting the message that his conduct has met the justification to use lethal force against him.

With that in mind, just what has not been communicated and understood? 1) the aggressor has the other person in fear of their life, 2) they are going to shoot them dead first.

I'm going to suggest that admitting you are afraid is the issue - it's as if you are admitting the other guy has the upper hand. Well, if you are in fear of your life, he DOES have the dominant position. You have failed to impress on him (or her) that they are quite successfully communicating that they are endangering your life.

Bullies do that, aggressive bullies take it to the limit. They have a personal track record that makes it seem to them the risk is low and that they will win.

There personal bias is to continue being the aggressor - if you need to pull out a firearm at that point, things are not going well, they are being out of control, and you do need to start issuing verbal warnings of their imminent suffering.

And don't shoot to wound - even aiming at the center of mass at 21 feet or less, you likely will only do that anyway. There is no guarantee of a lethal one shot stop.

Demographically over the last 40 years, we raised a population who were more successful at bullying people because less of them had guns. It's created a situation where many are raised in a non gun culture - they think they can get away with intimidation with no consequence. Prior to that - the general public had better manners simply because they knew past a certain point, their prey could and would likely get out the shooting irons and defend themselves.

We are now back on the statistical curve of rebuilding that awareness. And our present understanding of self defense practices has shown that warning shots are high risk to others around us and can easily escalate the situation.

There is the Tuller 21 foot dynamic to deal with - if the aggressor gets shot at, are they going to then turn tail and run? The ones who's risk assessment faculties are inoperable due to drugs or adrenaline will make a decision to rush their victim to overpower them.

Comes down to warn them, then don't hesitate to shoot if necessary. Grappling with an incensed aggressor who's now in fear of their life should be avoided, you have the gun out and you don't need to be nice anymore. It's not kickball on the playground, "be fair" went out the window when they targeted you. They never intended to be fair, they intended to intimidate you for their personal gain.

Warning shots are a political football, not a tactical expedient. Consider the source.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Using a lethal weapon with intent to wound is seldomn a good idea. My hometown had three years without a murder. Then there was a domestic dispute during which a son tried to stop his father from further abusing his mother by stabbing him in the leg. Cut the femoral artery. The dad bled out on the way to the hospital. The intent was to wound to stop the fight but it did not work out that way. You hit the femoral artery in the thigh, you may as well hit the aorta center of mass.

In otherwords, if lethal force is not justified--if there is no imminent threat to life or limb--shoot to wing 'em is worse an idea as shoot to warn and both are reckless and dangerous.


Off topic--watching "Stand By Me", I had the thought of a cartoon scenario where Wile E. Coyote rushes out to his mailbox to retrieve his eagerly anticipated order of Acme Powder Company blasting caps but drunken teenagers out bashing mailboxes with baseball bats beat him to it.