Warning Shots In Barfight?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warning shots are always a bad idea- no doubt. Having the man restrain himself and do nothing beause it might be risky would have been cold comfort to the tavern employee bleeding out because noone could help him.
 
The shooter was lucky - very lucky. If one of his rounds had found someone other than the attacker, we would all be saying how dumb he was to fire 'warning shots'.

Some unpleasent realities:
1. Guns cannot solve every problem.
2. Sometimes the good guys lose.
3. Frequently, the facts are not what they seem
(In this case, what if we find out later the bouncer was trying to kill the patron who was dating his ex-wife/girlfriend? And thus the patron was in fact acting in self defense. [Ripped from the headlines of a receint case.])
4. We are not justified in endangering everyone else on the scene because we 'may' be able to 'save' one person.
5. While we may have the desire to help, we may not be in a position to do so.

Life is tough. We cannot solve every problem. How would you feel if the errant 'warning shot' killed your significant other in this scenario?

I repeat: Warning shots are a bad idea, all the time, every place.
 
Warning Shot (an intentional discharge of a firearm albeit in a supposed safe direction.)
+
Person injured / killed by "stray" bullet
=
Voluntary Manslaughter (probably, despite whatever best intentions there might be. Certainly a civil suit)
 
I wonder who may have been in the apartment over the bar? OK, you saved the bouncer some stiches, but killed the little old lady who lived upstairs. More grist for the anti-gunners.
Another reason to say warning shots are a bad idea.
 
I just finished a NRA defensive handgun class last night. We had a Q&A session with an atty and judge. Bottom line, at least in WA, is that if you fire a warning shot you will end up in handcuffs. We were told this is SOP with police. You are considered to have escalated the situation and as the only time you are justified in pulling or firing your weapon is when you fear for your life or the life of another. The cops feel that if you have time or presence of mind to fire a warning shot then you obviously weren't that scared.
 
Why, if you are sober, wouldn't you carry into a bar? Are bars somehow safer than, say, a drugstore or library?
Click to expand...

What I meant by that is: If I'm going to go to a bar and have a drink - EVEN ONE - the gun stays at home.

There have been a couple of occasions where I met up with friends at a bar (these friends know I carry). In those cases, I simply had a soda or glass of water and enjoyed the conversation.

But simply put, my father was/is an alcoholic, and I've once witnessed a automotive fatality where the killed driver was drunk - which has given me reason to believe I really don't need the stuff, although I do get the thirst for an occasional glass of wine or beer when going out for a nice pasta or steak dinner. Again, THAT is when the gun stays at home.

-38
 
I'm not saying I would have fired warning shots, but I'm wondering about all the replies that just said that they shouldn't have been fired.

You see someone being repeatedly stabbed. A COM shot is nearly impossible to do. What would you have done?

Is this a no-win situation? Either you endanger a crowd of people or you allow a person to be assaulted, possibly fatally. Aren't we constantly criticizing the "sheeple" who stand around and do nothing while bad things happen?

All the reasons why warning shots are a bad idea, also apply to most any shooting (stray bullets, over penetration, misreading the situtation etc.). Now I know I'll see posts saying how good your aim is, how your rounds don't over penetrate, and how you're highly trained yourself to properly read ever situation before it happens.

But what about us "average" shooters? Aren't your reasons against warning shots the same reasons the anti's have against our guns in general?

Yes, some shots are more advised than others, yes some decisions are better than others, but aren't we all trying for the same thing: enough training and practicing so that when the SHTF we make the best decision we can, and execute that decision the best way we can?

I have no idea what I'd do in this situation. I doubt I would have even considered warning shots. But I applaud the guy for at least trying, and he did succeed.
 
..again I must express my surprise at the strong stance taken against the 'warning shot' given the scenario presented to us.. If I was locked up for doing that then :uhoh: :cuss:

Let's be brutally honest..in self-defence situations the standard rules of firearms safety can be compromised..I might be forced to take a shot at an hostile shooting at me but who is standing in front of kids and their is no immediate cover in sight, what do I do? You will see your muzzle sweep yourself and others during a gunfight etc. etc. Be mindful of this and don't kid yourself..hostiles cheat to win, if you don't follow suit then you will be :fire:
 
Island Berreta makes a good point. Exigent circumstances can force your hand. Textbook answer is no warning shots. We can textbook this out forever but reality can be different with it's wild cards.

Also, for us average joes...IF exigent circumstances force your hand, at least put it in the floor and not the ceiling! Them grammaw upstairs is in no danger.
 
Also, for us average joes...IF exigent circumstances force your hand, at least put it in the floor and not the ceiling! Them grammaw upstairs is in no danger.
Click to expand...

Of course, grandpa hiding in the basement may have a problem.
 
Yes, the textbook tells us that granpa may be in the basement. The textbook says a lost child could wander over the berm at the shooting range into your line of fire. The textbook says you can fall down your stairs at home. The textbook says you could get hit by falling space debris while walking to 7-11. The textbook says if someone needs help to help them. The textbook says if someone needs help that you should not help them because you're not a doctor. The textbook says not to think for yourself call the authorities and ask them to think for you.

Eventually, you have to put the textbook down and learn to think and live for yourself or put yourself into a plastic bubble to save your self from all the dangers in life, in short, have no life.

My god, I shouldn't even go to the supermarket anymore. What if I was to stumble into an eldely lady causing her to fall, break a hip and have a heart attack, killing her? I know the potential exists.

Maybe you shouldn't go to the range anymore. All those irresponsible people shooting guns downrange WHO KNOW that a bullet could ricochet off a rock and come back and kill you.

What's with that Sgt. York guy? He most stupidly charged towards a whole bunch of guys with guns in total disregard to his family that needed him. Better not jump in the water to try n save a drowning kid, they might pull you down too, or worse, they could die at the millisecond before you reach them and then the family sues YOU for killing their child. Better to stand on the shore yelling police and feeling sorry for them.

Yes, the sky might fall. Everyday your action or inaction could save a life or kill a life and the textbook will never tell you to do anything other than call the authorities. Chicken little mentality, living in fear from the authorities. Don't even try to help a cop who's getting the worst of a scuffle and the plaincloths guy is bringing his gun to the cops head..For all you know the cop is a rogue cop and the plainscloths guy is undercover trying to bring the rogue cop to justice.

There's a textbook argument for everything. The guy went against the grain of the textbook and saved a life, how irresponsible of him. :rolleyes:
 
Whoa

Now its getting weird- Firearms safety rules never, ever change from the Big 4, that's why they call'em rules. The last thing anybody wants in a gunfight is some twit who is more dangerous than the bad guys. The rules are in place in an effort to make gunfighting safe for us and risky for the bad guys. Ignoring safety increase the risk to us: who wants to take themselves out of the fight by some bone-headed safety violation

The rules should be second nature, there is NO excuse for violating them, None.

If in this scenario the shooter thought it was unsafe (and it probably was'nt) to light up the bad guy, then no shooting should have taken place. He should have (and I realize I am quarterbacking) chosen an alternate force option, such as a bar stool, another bottle, or whatever. This is not the time to waste ammo and put non-involved persons at risk - end of story.

Safety rules cannot be ignored or used when convenient, If a person cannot internalize the Big 4 and make them second nature they cannot be trusted with a firearm, period, end of discussion.

I may sound like a prick. Good, there is no margin for error here. The consequences of safety lapses are to horrific to allow. Either it gets done right, or not at all.
 
I don't see any violation of the 4 rules in this case. He fired into a safe backstop -- a solid hardwood beam thick enough (demonstrably) to stop a .380 slug.

Lethal force would have been justifiable -- if there was a clear shot. Since there was no clear shot, firing into a safe backstop was (also demonstrably) a good way to clear the scene, and to obtain a clear shot if the assault continued.

Firing a gun while yelling "DOWN" is a very good way to clear a crowded room.
 
Sendec: I asked a Q in my last post.. What happens if you're being shot at by a hostile, you have no immediate cover and your backdrop are kids? .. I gather from your post that you would have taken the shot then or prayed that the hostile missed, weapon malfunctioned, run out of ammo???

Of course things like vertical shoulder holsters should not be worn;
During building entry and movements LE teams must be spread parallel so as not to sweep each other, etc.

and don't forget manufacturer's warnings that you are only to load a bullet in the chamber of your gun when about to fire..


The firearm rules are there to be followed, but not blindly, there are many situations than can and have arised where to follow the rules would result in almost certain harm coming to you and/or others.. I WON'T ARGUE THIS TO DEATH BUT THE FIREARM RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN ALL INSTANCES. IN INSTANCES WHERE IT IS APPLICABLE AND YOU DID NOT AVAIL YOURSELF THEN YOU ARE IN TROUBLE.

I don't believe in night sights because I adhere to the concept that if you can't see the target then you should not fire..and I see statistics being spouted that most attacks takes place at night and that doesn't move me.. no, it is not that I don't expect that I can be attacked at nights, it is just that I carry a FLASHLIGHT to identify the target.. :what:
 
Went a little far maybe?;) Sorry. If you see my first post I said this incident was maybe the exception to the rule and it changes the rules not a whit. I generally agree with what you said sendec and don't think you're a prick.

I'm not saying to disregard any rules. But at some point situationals will arise that the options will go against the rules and critical thinking *may* confirm that the best thing to do is to go against the rules. If the guy had shot a patron, then we could reasonabley lambaste him in that he didn't make the best decision to shoot. But it's hard to argue with results. He very likely saved a life with his actions. Kudos for saving a life by thinking outside the box are in order. If he had followed the rules, the guy may have died leaving shooter wondering/feeling guilty for the rest of his life if he could've saved a life by taking a calculated risk, but did not because of the potential legalities/danger. I'd feel like a smuck if I just stood there and watched a guy die.

In general it always a good idea to follow the rules. But to go nuerotic about it and not allow yourself to think outside the box is a waste of air and life. (that last statement is to no one in particular...generally speaking). It's hard to argue with results, soo, shooter, you done good but don't make a habit of it!

Better?:)
 
Carpetbagger, we only ASSUME the beam absorbed the rounds, because the press report did not report any people being hit. We have no information if, in fact, the rounds bounced, but only struck property.

You seem to be starting from the concept that an armed individual MUST take action. Even as an officer, no one can fault you (or me) for saying "It was not safe". Here, the good of the many must outweight the good of the few (or the one). The shooter endangered every person in the bar, including the bouncer, by fireing warning shots. He, and they, were lucky.

Island, given your scenario of the shooter standing in front of children, you could drop to the ground, effectivly raising the target above the background. Our, as the intended target, you could move away, changing the angle, and moving the shooter away from the children. Once again, your brain is your most important tool, not your gun.
[BTW, why should you not wear a vertical shoulder holster? I never heard that one.]

I have been in a situation where lives were at stake, but I could not take action. Two individuals, both armed with knives, were fighting in the street in front of a school. As this was apparently mutual combat (who is the BG and the good guy???), all I could do was call for the local police to sort things out. I was certainly not going to take sides, or endanger the children in the school by drawing my gun. What if they both attacked me? Where would an errant shot impact? Yea, Yea, I'm a good shot. But what if I missed?

All situations call for a risk/benifit anylsis. As an officer, I would often back off and call for backup. Why should a civilian wade in, without help? In the case at hand, firing shots inside a crowded bar is iffy in the best of circumstance. Fireing warning shots is a bad idea.

And personalize this: What if your significant other had been killed by one of these warning shots? Still think they were a good idea? They saved the bouncer, but killed your SO.
 
and don't forget manufacturer's warnings that you are only to load a bullet in the chamber of your gun when about to fire..
Click to expand...
What manufacturer is that . I know of no modern gun design that requires carrying with an empty chamber
I don't believe in night sights because I adhere to the concept that if you can't see the target then you should not fire..and I see statistics being spouted that most attacks takes place at night and that doesn't move me.. no, it is not that I don't expect that I can be attacked at nights, it is just that I carry a FLASHLIGHT to identify the target..
Click to expand...
Night sights are not designed to help ID the target they are there to help focus on the target in low light when the relativly close set black sights would be difficult to see.

If we can assume that there was an old lady in an upstairs apartment, an old man in a downstairs basement ( niether of which I have ever seen living in Fla), or small children in the bar.
Then we can also assume that the shooter purposely targeted the heavy wooden beam knowing that it would absorb the puny little round.
We can further assume that the bouncer was his brother as much as we can assume that the attacker was actually the victim of and the bouncer was actuall the attacker.

It was stated in the origunal post that it was not possible to intervene with beer bottles or crow bars or barstools
And that others were unwilling or unable to break the fight up.

Most of the bars I have worked in have had regulars just like Cheers did. So we can also assume that the shooter knew the victim a had at least some kind of relationship with him. And realized that he could not or would not let the man die just because he did not have a text book shot

Backing off is sometimes a good option only you know when that time is cause only you have to look in your mirror in the morning.
 
Last edited:
yeah, I'll argue with the results ...

Sendec and Sleuth have presented excellent cases (and I agree totally with them). Let's address the fact that in a noisy, dark, crowded place when you draw your gun, thinking someone's life is at risk, you may be in the midst of a huge adrenalin dump ... it's very, very difficult the first time you do so to be as confident as you'd like about where your rounds may end up. You are only as good as your training. Muscle memory is a great thing, but vision is pretty key too --and in the dark -- hell, we don't even know if the guy who fired the shots had (1) been the beneficiary of even fundamental handgun training and (2) been drinking. I submit that this guy was stupid. Stupid, but lucky.
 
Since alot of people ar etalking about "what ifs" here's one for you:

You are in a crowded night club, another patron of the nightclub pulls out a gun and starts shooting randomly into the crowd at other patrons. You are carrying and the badguy hasn't seen you yet. The BG is between you and the exit. What do you do?
 
This is why there are no hard and fast 'rules of engagment' in life. Sometimes you have to make a choice based on the best info you have at the time. That then calls for action of some sort, regardless of the legalities. Life's situations are fluid, and at best we can only be guided by rules and laws.
 
Cracked Butt....

You are carrying and the badguy hasn't seen you yet. The BG is between you and the exit. What do you do?
Click to expand...
Although a lot more "what ifs" could even be added to this one, I'm going to take some assumptions here.

You stated that the BG is between you and the exit. Assuming this and that no bystanders are in the way....

TAKE THE SHOT AND DROP THE S.O.B.!!!!!

So, let's start another debate regarding this one, right? :scrutiny:

-38
 
This is why there are no hard and fast 'rules of engagment' in life. Sometimes you have to make a choice based on the best info you have at the time. That then calls for action of some sort, regardless of the legalities. Life's situations are fluid, and at best we can only be guided by rules and laws.
Click to expand...

Yes. Rules are a starting point for the uninitiated. Critical thinking must kick in where rules leave off.
 
When I refer to anything as "safety rules" I am refering to the Big 4, nothing more and nothing, and I mean nothing, less. They simply cannot be ignored because it is inconvenient.
If a person has so little mastery of these basic skills that they interfere with his or her ability to function in a fight, they should not be armed.

If you do not feel this way, fine. Do whatever you need to do, but you are responsible for the outcome of your actions. I can also state unequivocally that I, and the people who think like I do, will not permit a lapse of the Big 4 to occur. Sweep me with a muzzle and see what happens. I dont care if we are stacking aoutside a door, I cannot allow you to put me or mine at risk.

Part of my job is teaching firearms to preservice and in-service LEOs. I am unbending and intolerant when it comes to safety, that being religious adherence to the Big 4. I also do not have many other rules than those. I can also state that during my years in the field as a LEO I never found it neccesary to violate these four simple rules. While I never by the grace of God had to finish a trigger press, I found enough opportunity to practice being very safe in preparing to hurt someone very badly. While on point, many many times I felt more at risk form sloppy gunhandling by the officers and deputies behind me than the badguys in front.

Sorry for the preachery, but this is important. I have seen first hand what can happen when someone gets careless, and it is ugly.
 
Sendec, I was an instructor at our academy as well, and I share your feelings about both the big 4, and the potential risk from other officers. I actually refused to work with another Federal Agencies people because their gunhandling was so bad!

As to the BG shooting at random in the club, I would drop the BG:

"If they are going to hurt you, hurt them worse first!"
 
He fired THREE warning shots !! Under rare circumstances I'd fire one but certainly not three. He may need those rounds . But starting out at square one - the first rule if you are in a bar or anywhere else and a fight breaks out - LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. This is for your safety.Many people have been injured in such situations because they were curious and wanted to see what was going on. Fights can quickly grow involving even "innocent bystanders" .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(IL) Off-duty cop stops heist while getting a haircut
Replies
9
Views
560
TheeBadOne
T
W
  • Locked
(TX) Two armed robbers shot dead by store clerk 06-01-03
Replies
2
Views
481
pax
P
T
  • Locked
Cocoa officer cleared on shot
Replies
6
Views
473
seeker_two
S
D
  • Locked
Shooting in nightclub
Replies
1
Views
423
Tamara
T
G
  • Locked
He brought a bat to a gunfight and lost - media buried story
Replies
10
Views
918
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top