Bartholomew Roberts
Member
On warning shots, we just discussed this in a similar thread. I used the phrase "warning shot" and "self defense" to search the All States database of Westlaw cases. I got 565 hits and wasn't able to read them all; but by and large it reinforced my idea that warning shots were a bad idea. Some examples from cases explaining why:
1. Warning shots very rarely stop the attacker. In almost every case, multiple shots were fired because the warning shot convinced the attacker that the person he was attacking was unwilling to use deadly force and could be assaulted. In very few cases of the 160 or so I have read so far was a warning shot effective to halt the attack. I just don't see much evidence that a warning shot is any more effective than a verbal warning; but it does carry a lot more risk than a verbal warning.
2. You are responsible for every shot you fire - in one case, two young criminals in a car were surrounded by an opposing gang of criminals armed with bricks, bats, chains and intent on stopping their car and dragging them out. One of the men in the car fired a warning shot which ricocheted off the concrete and struck an innocent bystander in the chest. Having seen plenty of ricochets off of dirt berms, I want to have a better idea of where any shot I fire is going to stop; because I am going to be held responsible for the law for where that shot stops. If I am lucky, it will just be property damage.
3. Warning shots sometimes strike the attacker causing legal problems for the shooter. In at least one case, a man was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after his warning shot (he was firing up into the air) struck his attacking son-in-law in the neck. He claimed both accident and self-defense at trial; but the prosecutor used his initial statement to police claiming accident to shoot down his self-defense claim. They then brought out past testimony from other people indicating he had brandished his firearm in the past during verbal arguments (the testimony was allowed because it went to his claim of accident). Combined with the fact that his son-in-law appeared to be unarmed, it put this small business owner away for ten years.
An argument can be made that you not only didn't believe deadly force was necessary (as evidenced by not using it); but that the threat was not immediate either (since you had time to fire a warning shot). It may also cloud the issue whether your shooting was intentional self-defense or a negligent discharge that struck someone you did not intend to strike. That second point can be particularly important if the shooting happens at your home (in a state without a Castle Doctrine-type law) because it means a civil suit can be filed against your homeowner's insurance if it can be shown that you didn't intend to shoot the person you shot. You may not have the money to make a civil suit worth an attorney's time; but your homeowner's policy probably does and they are likely to settle as well.
Overall, I see few benefits to a warning shot to compensate for the extra risks you are running in firing one.
1. Warning shots very rarely stop the attacker. In almost every case, multiple shots were fired because the warning shot convinced the attacker that the person he was attacking was unwilling to use deadly force and could be assaulted. In very few cases of the 160 or so I have read so far was a warning shot effective to halt the attack. I just don't see much evidence that a warning shot is any more effective than a verbal warning; but it does carry a lot more risk than a verbal warning.
2. You are responsible for every shot you fire - in one case, two young criminals in a car were surrounded by an opposing gang of criminals armed with bricks, bats, chains and intent on stopping their car and dragging them out. One of the men in the car fired a warning shot which ricocheted off the concrete and struck an innocent bystander in the chest. Having seen plenty of ricochets off of dirt berms, I want to have a better idea of where any shot I fire is going to stop; because I am going to be held responsible for the law for where that shot stops. If I am lucky, it will just be property damage.
3. Warning shots sometimes strike the attacker causing legal problems for the shooter. In at least one case, a man was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after his warning shot (he was firing up into the air) struck his attacking son-in-law in the neck. He claimed both accident and self-defense at trial; but the prosecutor used his initial statement to police claiming accident to shoot down his self-defense claim. They then brought out past testimony from other people indicating he had brandished his firearm in the past during verbal arguments (the testimony was allowed because it went to his claim of accident). Combined with the fact that his son-in-law appeared to be unarmed, it put this small business owner away for ten years.
An argument can be made that you not only didn't believe deadly force was necessary (as evidenced by not using it); but that the threat was not immediate either (since you had time to fire a warning shot). It may also cloud the issue whether your shooting was intentional self-defense or a negligent discharge that struck someone you did not intend to strike. That second point can be particularly important if the shooting happens at your home (in a state without a Castle Doctrine-type law) because it means a civil suit can be filed against your homeowner's insurance if it can be shown that you didn't intend to shoot the person you shot. You may not have the money to make a civil suit worth an attorney's time; but your homeowner's policy probably does and they are likely to settle as well.
Overall, I see few benefits to a warning shot to compensate for the extra risks you are running in firing one.
