Need a reason to NOT fire a warning shot?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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."

Out here there used to be a lot of news stories and anecdotes about criminals on PCP not being stopped by being shot, or at least requiring a lot more hits and with higher calibers to be stopped. On reading the above I went googling for statistics on this but couldn't find anything, does anyone here know whether this is still prevalent, is the number of such criminals increasing or decreasing, etc?
 
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.
Click to expand...
And we only know the son's intent because he TOLD us. There is no independent proof.

Had he gone up against an SOB of a prosecutor who deliberately chose NOT to believe him, things might have gone differently.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also stay away from words like "always" and "never".

I can't imagine a case where a waring shot could be justified, that using lethal force would not also be justified.

I'm also thinking that while I could state that I would never fire a warning shot, I can also imagine the scenario where I would be so reluctant to shoot that It might be considered as a last resort to not kill someone. It would be less diffcult to do what is necessary if that person were a stranger than a family member.
 
I can think of just one situation where a warning shot was probably a good choice.

Years ago, my business partner and his son were out deer hunting. A pickup load of drunk hunters pulled up on a promontory across the ravine from them, and started shooting at them.

Both my partner and his son were wearing blaze orange. They took cover behind some rocks, and yelled and waved their blaze orange shirts. All that was to no avail. The drunks continued laughing and shooting at them.

After about half an hour of this nonsense, my partner put a round through the open door of the pickup, where he could clearly see that no one was behind it.

He said you never saw a bunch of guys sober up and get off the mountain so fast in your life.

He would have been completely justified in shooting one of the drunks. But by putting a round through the door, he was able to avoid that.

Otherwise, I'm no fan of warning shots.
 
After reading through the posts above I can't help myself but be quite surprised to see that shooting at cars/cars with people inside is considered "warning shot" in US. Here it means shooting the dirt, and I mean dirt on the side not centimeters from potential threat.

As a side note to the LEOs mentioning above that in their training they were told that there is no such thing as warning shot - in my country policemen are bound by the law to give at least one warning shot before they open fire on escaping suspect in order to stop him (of course there is no such duty in case of ongoing/imminent attack).
 
Snejdarek, in the story that is the subject of the OP, shooting at a car w/ people inside is not considered a warning shot (no matter what the defendant claimed), hence the life in prison sentence.
 
if you feel the need to fire a warning shot, it means you fear for your life enough to discharge a firearm. if you fear for your life that much, it means whoever you scare away is likely going to threaten someone else in the future, and possibly succeed next time. with that in mind, it's unethical to fire a warning shot, because of the harm whoever you're warning off will likely do in the future, in my opinion.
 
Lord Teapot said:
if you feel the need to fire a warning shot, it means you fear for your life enough to discharge a firearm. if you fear for your life that much, it means whoever you scare away is likely going to threaten someone else in the future, and possibly succeed next time. with that in mind, it's unethical to fire a warning shot, because of the harm whoever you're warning off will likely do in the future, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent argument.

On the other hand, your primary responsibility is to your family, not to the "next stranger in line." Depending on local laws, should the moment come when the prosecution views your fear as unfounded, you will be in much hotter water in case you shot the person than if you shot the dirt. And while you are boiling, who will be there for your family?

(Of course always depending on the fact that you have the time and space for a warning shot)
 
I've never been to a firearms school that has recommended a warning shot. Having said that, I am sure it has been done (even in situations where lethal force could be used). I am sure that some bad guys have then decided to give and are alive because of this.
 
A warning shot is still use of deadly force, and will very likely be treated -- and prosecuted -- as such. It'll be hard to justify that you felt the threat was imminent if you only felt threatened enough to "warn" the other guy. If things haven't progressed past the warning stage, best to use a verbal warning. Using guns to send messages is a very bad idea.
 
Snejdarek said:
That is an excellent argument.

On the other hand, your primary responsibility is to your family, not to the "next stranger in line." Depending on local laws, should the moment come when the prosecution views your fear as unfounded, you will be in much hotter water in case you shot the person than if you shot the dirt. And while you are boiling, who will be there for your family?

(Of course always depending on the fact that you have the time and space for a warning shot)
Click to expand...

on the other other hand, firing a warning shot can be taken as evidence you are not in-fact in immediate fear for your life, because it was a warning shot and clearly demonstrates a lack of need to defend yourself immediately from great bodily harm or death. the only time you're justified in using a firearm in self defense is when the bolded is true, in most cases. ending up with an attempted murder conviction is going to put you away from your family for quite some time, personally i would kill the intruder and hope for the best, rather than firing a warning shot, have him run off and call 911, and they come arrest me over it. either way, using a firearm on another person is a serious issue with lots of legal fandingoing that can go down, so i see your point.
 
Last edited:
I've never been to a firearms school that has recommended a warning shot.
Click to expand...

Nope, because you haven't been to a firearms school that teaches reliance on psychological stops. However, probably every gun school you have been to acknowledges that bad guys have been dissuaded from pursuing their courses of action through a variety of means other than by being shot and then sometimes by being shot in a manner that is non-life threatening (because of poor shooting).

Most gun schools focus on what to do once the decision to use lethal force is made and you want to definitively try to physiologically stop your target, not psychologically. Warning shots are a psychological ploy as is firearm display. Each has legal consequences and risks.

on the other other hand, firing a warning shot can be taken as evidence you are not in-fact in immediate fear for your life, because it was a warning shot and clearly demonstrates a lack of need to defend yourself immediately from great bodily harm or death.
Click to expand...

Could you cite the cases where this has been successfully argued? Plenty of people have been in fear of their lives, yet do not want to use lethal force on another except as a last possible resort.
 
Everybody is talking in terms of strangers.

What happens when its in your household? You teenager is on drugs and picks up a knife, or Uncle Joe drank too much on Thanksgiving and is becoming violent. You may be lawfully able to use deadly force, but are you capable of making your first pull of the trigger a shoot to kill, aim center mass, proposition?

If statistics on violence and homocide enter into your world reality, you may want to think over these type scenarios in your mind. "Bad guys" can be family members, and that makes these decisions a whole lot more difficult.
 
It reminds me of a guy (supposedly a trained pursuit driver) who claimed his engine ran away with him. When asked, "Why didn't you just shift into neutral and come to a stop?" he replied, "I didn't want to damage the engine."

(He stopped the car by slamming into a bridge abutment.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Another reason why "warning" shots are a bad idea
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Alchymist
A
K
  • Locked
Warning Shots and Felonious Assault
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
GEM
G
J
  • Locked
Florida woman sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shot
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Kleanbore
K
W
  • Locked
Good shoot? Y/N?
Replies
9
Views
718
outlawgunslnger
O
T
  • Locked
Suspect in officer slayings bought rifle Christmas Eve
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
rick newland
R
Back
Top