A viable tool in my opinion,if safely done.To me,that would mean firing into the ground,not where it could find an innocent person.
The use of lethal force,where no personal danger exists,solely for the protection of property,does vary from state to state.Where I'm located,it's a no-no.It can only be used when one's personal safety is at risk(also implying that if one should remove oneself from risk,if possible)or to protect someone else,who is in danger,being raped,etc.
It wouldn't be me firing a shot in that situation.
In Oklahoma, she would be subject to criminal charges. Oklahoma does not allow deadly force in defense of property.
In general, firing a warning shot in OK is stupid, because if you are not "in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" why are you shooting? And if you are in imminent danger, why aren't you shooting him? IANAL but I was certified to teach OK CHL classes.
Bad and illegal where I live. Especially if the bad guy was trying to get away and no longer posed an immediate threat. As gunnails said, she should have just kept the weapon holstered. Firing a "warning shot" would get you charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, at least, around here, and you would kiss you CPL/CCW permit goodbye.
If the situation does not justify shooting the threat to stop it, a warning shot would also not be justified. If you fire a shot (into the ground, air, or a person), you own it, and will have to articulate why you fired. Your freedom, and/or assets may depend on your explanation.
I won't say "never", but I will say that the odds of a "warning shot" being a good idea are so small that I do not expect to ever learn of one of which I would approve. If you can't justify putting rounds in the vital organs of an offender, don't press the trigger.
Whether or not it would be lawful depends on state law. Whether or not anyone would G. A. S. is a matter of good fortune and LE/prosecutor discretion, a combination on which only a fool would bet their future.
I'm of the opinion that there is never a reason for a warning shot. Never.
If an attacker doesn't obey a verbal command to stop, then he needs to be shot. Hence, the only time your gun should be discharged on the street is in defense of yourself or someone you choose to defend from bodily harm.
Even in states where it is legal, warning shots for property crimes doesn't make sense. The bullet has to go somewhere. And I'm not convinced that each an every person willing to fire a warning shot will remember to do so in a safe manner. If such a thing exists.
We were always taught to not shoot warning shots, or to shoot at a moving motor vehicle. I agree with both rules. If you shoot a warning shot, you are responsible for where the bullet goes and what it does. If you shoot at a car and kill the driver, then you have a 3,000 lb. (est.) unmanned projectile and you are responsible for where it goes and what it does. When I was growing up in Dallas, if a person ran from the police they have been known to shoot at them. One such incident in the next block ended with the suspect shot in the leg. While I do not exactly agree with this, it sure slowed down the number of people that ran from the police.
It's been said before, but with the high cost of ammo these days, a warning shot is a way too expensive waste of a shot. If you have to draw, the first shot should be directly into the perp who wants to take your life or otherwise do you or others lethal harm.
If I'm not mistaken on the incident, I believe I read she has been charged with something and has had to surrender her permit and the weapon is being held as evidence etc.
Warning shots are always a bad deal. When one fires a weapon, the shooter is responsible for that round till it comes to rest...no matter what your intention is. Most if not all of the LE departments in virtually all states, by policy, forbid warning shots. Prior to my retirement in 2002 I had to conduct an investigation into a officer firing his weapon unintentionally during a foot chase, when he tripped and went splat on the concrete. Prior to my investigation the supervision had been told it was a warning shot by someone and felt an investigation should be conducted prior to disciplinary action and possible termination for firing a warning shot. My investigation cleared the trooper and while he had a couple of days off for running with his finger on the trigger, which is a clear safety violation, it wasn't something that caused termination. But the departments policy is clear that there will NOT be any warning shots.
Generally a bad idea and probably against the law. IF a warning shot is called for (big 'if') the shot should be fired into the ground, not over someone's head (into the air). She could have killed somebody 3 blocks away.
Too much risk in a warning shot. It was against the rules we operated under during my LEO years for lots of good reasons. How would you like to explain your warning shot that hit an unintended thing or person in court?
The "running away" notation will be her undoing. Seems to have be in a T.V./movie state of mind. Where did she think the bullet would fall in a crowded parking lot, or did she stop to think. Just another looser that doesn't deserve a CC permit which I'm sure if she had one won't for much longer.
Rastoff, if I didn't know, respect and like you so much, I'd say you were trolling. Funny video, though...
Thanks for the respect and I'm not trolling with this though, I can see why you would say that.
This is a subject that deserves to be discussed from time to time. There are a lot of varying opinions about the warning shot. In my opinion, it makes us all better to bring these things up and hash them around for a while.
I'm with Doug M. in that there may be some obscure situation where a warning shot was the right response, but I haven't seen or heard of one yet. My thoughts are that it is a bad response tactically and maybe legally depending on where you're standing. It's also unsafe.
Tactically:
You are now less one round. If you were concealed, you're not anymore.
Legally:
In most cases, if you have time to fire a warning shot, you're not in immediate threat of great bodily harm or death. Then there may be local laws preventing it. Most likely it will be seen as an illegal discharge of a firearm.
Safety:
If you fire the warning shot, what direction is safe? Up in the air is not safe because you don't know where it will come down. Down in the ground is not safe due to potential ricochet. So, how can you do it safely?
When I was the Rangemaster for a Federal agency in the 80's and 90's I always told my trainees that if you miss your target consider it a law suit. Missed 3 times? Then there would be 3 lawsuits. Accuracy improved greatly when you attach responsibility to your rounds.
As a LEO, never fire a warning shot - even in the performance of duty as a reason or excuse. As a private citizen, never fire a warning shot as you could very well be committing a criminal offense.
A guy tried to snatch a woman's purse at a Wal Mart in Texas. Several customers took it upon themselves to, um, deliver a little justice:
The lady in the white t-shirt fired a shot over the robber's head as he tried to get away. This is when he fell. She did not shoot him.
Was it the right thing to do in this situation? Are warning shots a viable tool? What would you have done had you been there?
I saw this yesterday.
I have two problems with it. While the struggle is going on, she has her weapon pointed in the direction of all the guys on the ground.
Then when the suspect takes off, she fires the warning shot at a somewhat shallow angle into the air, rather than into the grass. Don't know the caliber of the pistol, but gotta wonder where that bullet ended up? Looked to me like a crowded area.
She could be charged with something...perhaps illegally discharging a weapon in city limits or something. And maybe she should be charged, not for me to say, I don't live in Texas and am not familiar with their laws.
Seriously doubt, though, that she'll be charged with attempted murder, as someone suggests.
Bottom line, from what I saw, there was no need at all for her to draw her weapon.
Too much risk in a warning shot. It was against the rules we operated under during my LEO years for lots of good reasons. How would you like to explain your warning shot that hit an unintended thing or person in court?
Not only do I agree with what's been said about the warning shot, the video ticks me off because, that is exactly the kind of thing that the anti-gun crowd will use as a prime example of an "out of control gun nut", and why people should not be allowed guns or the ability carry in any manner.
In the CCW permit class I attended, it was even said by the instructor that if there was an avenue to remove yourself from the imminent threat, and you instead elect to confront instead of flee, depending on the climate/disposition of the jurisdiction, you could end being considered the aggressor and charged as such. I think that's a load of **** that that aspect even needed to be discussed regarding self defense. It reminded me of department policy in the early 70's when I was on the job that prohibited upholstering a weapon unless you were being fired upon.
Back in the day, when it was a realistic threat to a bad guy that a citizen could and would protect themselves, without a lot of conditions/limitations (either explicit or implicit), it seemed like it was a heck of a lot safer to go about your everyday business.
__________________
Conrad
SWCA #1830 SWHF #222
Last edited by Gunhacker; 11-27-2015 at 03:46 PM.
Reason: typo
Being a thug is a dangerous profession and the sooner they realize law abiding folks have had their full the better it will be. With that said, warning shots just got stink all over them and are a bad idea.
First, let me say I am in 100% agreement with all the reasons NOT to fire a warning shot.
Before I knew better, I fired two shots that could be so described on one occasion. I was working on a forestry maintenance contract for the Soil Conservation Service to pay my way through college. These jobs were hard, hot work but the pay was good if you could survive financially to completion, which usually took all summer. If one contractor defaulted, someone else could bid on completion and the whole payout went to the one who completed.
About mid way through one job, bullets started hitting the trees above my head. Since I was running a chain saw, there was no question but that the shooter knew someone was out there. Still, I shut off the saw, yelled, walked back to the truck and honked the horn. As soon as I started the saw again, the shooting resumed. This area was far from any residence, or even camp, so I concluded someone wanted me off the job. I packed up, went to town and considered my options. There was no way the sheriff was going to detail a deputy to guard me. I really needed the money and had no more saved than I needed to get through the summer. I swapped my shotgun for a .44 cap and ball revolver.
The next day the shooting resumed. This time I had a better idea of the direction where the shots originated. I turned in that general direction and fired two rounds into a stump. The shooting stopped. I finished the job and went back to college.
Later, as a LEO, I was instructed not to fire warning shots or shoot at "hot cars". It was good counsel and I followed it.
But I'm still not sure shooting that stump was a bad idea, even though it was not a threat to me at the time.
"Warning shot" is when U miss the target (its basically a newspaper word) Some cops would claim it was a "signal shot" if they were in a wooded area and wanted to alert others as to their location.
I'm not satisfied it was a warning shot, I think she missed him or pulled the shot at the last second.
terry
I had to go watch again, but I agree. She missed. Also went to find the news station site that had the video. No mention of her arrest in the story. Still, was a bonehead move all around on her part.
I thought she missed as well. In Texas one may defend one's property with deadly force if necessary. One may also use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony. I believe robbery is a felony in Texas, so she may walk on this eventually.
I still think it was a bad idea, though. I wouldn't shoot at a thief who was running away. A purse is not worth a life.
It seems like everyone here is pretty much in agreement. One should only fire their weapon to stop an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to one's self or a third person. Warning shots are never acceptable.
Idiot shouldn't be allowed to touch a firearm again. Finger on the trigger and firing a warning shot? One of those guys trying to wrestle the suspect could have easily been killed. All because of one trigger happy idiot. It's beyond stupid!
The only valid warning shot situation I've ever heard of involved a LE Ranger who fired a round at Hawaii Volcano NP. In that case, a clueless (or idiot) visitor disregarded warning signs and walked across a recent lava field toward an active flow in a remote area of the park. The visitor did not respond to shouted warnings because of distance and noise from the lava flow, so the Ranger touched off a round in a safe direction to get his attention. It worked, and the visitor returned. Although the agency forbade warning shots, the Ranger was cleared because he was acting under exigent circumstances in the interest of public safety. The vid of the woman in TX is clearly not in that category. That didn't appear to be a warning shot. She was lucky she didn't harm or kill an innocent, given the crowded lot filled with human activity.
Thanks for the respect and I'm not trolling with this though, I can see why you would say that.
This is a subject that deserves to be discussed from time to time. There are a lot of varying opinions about the warning shot. In my opinion, it makes us all better to bring these things up and hash them around for a while.
I'm with Doug M. in that there may be some obscure situation where a warning shot was the right response, but I haven't seen or heard of one yet. My thoughts are that it is a bad response tactically and maybe legally depending on where you're standing. It's also unsafe.
Tactically:
You are now less one round. If you were concealed, you're not anymore.
Legally:
In most cases, if you have time to fire a warning shot, you're not in immediate threat of great bodily harm or death. Then there may be local laws preventing it. Most likely it will be seen as an illegal discharge of a firearm.
Safety:
If you fire the warning shot, what direction is safe? Up in the air is not safe because you don't know where it will come down. Down in the ground is not safe due to potential ricochet. So, how can you do it safely?
All excellent points, and of course I wasn't actually suggesting you were trolling, buddy.
Agreed, too, that on closer review I'm genuinely uncertain of whether she was firing a warning shot or displaying (thankfully) poor marksmanship.
Can you repost the video but set it to the Benny Hill music?
In the CCW permit class I attended, it was even said by the instructor that if there was an avenue to remove yourself from the imminent threat, and you instead elect to confront instead of flee, depending on the climate/disposition of the jurisdiction, you could end being considered the aggressor and changed as such. I think that's a load of **** that that aspect even needs to be discussed.
I agree with your feelings and it doesn't need to be discussed. This instructor is spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) and they need to quit. There is no law in CA stating that you must withdraw if an avenue is available. So, his assertion that you "might" be prosecuted is just placing indecision in the minds of a defender. That's always bad when your life is on the line.
The best fight is no fight. So, if an avenue of escape is available, I recommend taking it. However, you may not know that avenue is available and need to defend yourself from an assailant. Hesitating because of some trumped up fear could be deadly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal44
What if the threat has 4 legs?
If, for example you see a mtn lion stalking you?
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter. If a mountain lion is stalking you, you probably won't know it until it attacks. At that point it's clear what you should do.
However, if you did discover it before it attacked, making it aware that you are aware of it will usually be enough. Throwing something might scare it away. Yelling at it might work as well. If it's determined enough to continue after that, there's a good chance nothing will stop it short of injury or death. Hunger is an amazing source of determination.
I think the same rules apply. If you have to shoot, the warning shot only wastes a bullet, costs you time and is still unsafe.
Not a great decision. Shot taken towards a parking lot while the guy was running away.
I also think I'd been pissed if I were the 2 guys tying to wrestle him down to the ground. Then, saw this video where she has the pistol aimed at them the entire time. I probably would have turned my attention towards her afterwards, with some not so nice words being said.
Perhaps a "Warning shot" would be something fired "Prior" to the incidents escalation where IMO the posted video shows someone firing their gun after the threat was fleeing with the swag...(Post incident)
Two legged or four legged threat makes no difference when you perceive that life is in imminent danger and produce a handgun to counter that threat and just perhaps the amount of time you hesitate before firing is actually their "Warning",
In that time if the threat turns and runs I would prefer to let it go back to its lair but if it chooses to press the attack probably going to regret that decision in micro seconds.
Last edited by Engine49guy; 11-28-2015 at 07:24 PM.
Warning shots- Good, Bad, Illegal?
Linear Mode
