It seems that warning shots were common in movies. Maybe that's where people got the idea. Strangely, my agency authorized warning shots in some instances but that was when I first started back in 1966.
As others have correctly said here, firing warning shots reduces your remaining ammo, particularly in revolvers, the bullet may strike a non-combatant and you can also be charged with reckless endangerment, menacing, etc.
The way deadly force laws are interpreted these days, attempting to use deadly force in a non-deadly manner is still the application of deadly force.
The ONLY reason to be shooting off of a range or hunting field is to defend yourself or another from the immediate and credible threat of unlawful deadly force. If that threat doesn't merit being shot itself, it doesn't merit gunfire AT ALL.
Bullets don't disappear down a black hole if you don't fire them at anything in particular. They come down... sometimes in people. In Ohio my assailant cannot recover damages if it's a good shoot. If I randomly shoot shots not necessary to end the threat and hit an innocent person, the victim and his assigns OWN me.
I don't carry an infinite supply of ammunition. Why would I waste any of it?
I cast my vote along with the majority. A warning shot is not a good idea. There's so much more going on here than a simple warning shot. This is the worst example of either not being aware of or, apparently, not caring about what's beyond your target.
In addition to her ______ (fill in the blank: warning, missed, stupid) shot, in the first half of the 24 second video she manages to point her gun towards 5 good guys, a moving red sedan, a moving newer white truck, the alleged perpetrator, and who knows what else outside the frame of the video. In the second half she manages to point at 2 good guys, an older white truck, and silver SUV, the alleged perpetrator, numerous parked vehicles, and who knows what other people in the parking lot. The You Tube video quality does not make it clear, but it looks like her finger is probably on the trigger most, if not all the time. She totally blows it on 3 of the 4 cardinal safety rules.
Here's a 2013 case in which a woman with no previous record got 20 years for firing a warning shot in her home at her husband, whom she had filed a protective order against, to protect herself from physical harm: Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots - CBS News
How about this felons mothers opinion that "Its her career criminal sons RIGHT to rob people and not be shot !
That's hardly an unusual attitude in the "families" of felons.
When I come across it in various online forums, I mock it mercilessly.
As a general rule of thumb, those "parents" are in large part a major reason why their feral children end up dead. If you're going to raise your children to be predators, you need to instill in them a 100% INFALLIBLE victim selection ability. If they pick the wrong victim and end up dead, that's on you and them.
I have not one IOTA of sympathy for you or the dead offspring you raised to be an animal.
It's a stupid idea and in Washington State you are only allowed to fire to protect yourself or others from grave bodily or deadly harm. You are not allowed to fire at or shoot someone who is stealing your property, no matter how badly they need shot!!!
I must be old. About 30yrs ago I discussed this w/ Ofcs who had used Dept aproved warning shots, including the last one before the Dept policy changed ( several yrs previously) .
Even when done in Best Practice mode , there are a whole lot more ways for things to go South , than possible advantagous outcomes.
As far as encouraging a specific suspect to halt & surrender, the Ofcs I spoke with reported it usually resulted the BG running away even faster.
Large dangerous animals ? The situations don't occur nearly as pften as collectively imagined, but when it does, it usually works
And for clarity's sake , my point is don't do it (at least not for two legged malfactors ).
It's a stupid idea and in Washington State you are only allowed to fire to protect yourself or others from grave bodily or deadly harm. You are not allowed to fire at or shoot someone who is stealing your property, no matter how badly they need shot!!!
So if standing in line when two thugs begin to rob a store at gun point your position is they are not a threat and dont deserve to be shot ?
So if standing in line when two thugs begin to rob a store at gun point your position is they are not a threat and dont deserve to be shot ?
Are you trying to start an argument?
The poster clearly stated that self defense was justified in the event of imminent danger. Armed robbery would constitute imminent danger don't you think?
Did you link the wrong video or did I miss something? In the video I just watched I never heard her say anything like that. She just said she didn't know why he did what he did.
What did I see and hear was the dead perp's stepfather say that "my son was in the wrong but he didn't need to shoot him that many times with that caliber of gun".
It sounds like he was more or less saying his stepson shouldn't have been shot and killed (maybe only wounded?) for trying to hold up the drugstore with a sawed off shotgun.
I would have to disagree with that. Obviously, anybody robbing and threatening people with a sawed off shotgun deserves whatever they get - up to and including being shot dead in self defense by one of the people being robbed.
The ONLY reason to be shooting off of a range or hunting field is to defend yourself or another from the immediate and credible threat of unlawful deadly force. If that threat doesn't merit being shot itself, it doesn't merit gunfire AT ALL.
This is a bit overstated, IMHO.
I spent many a day as a kid shooting soda and beer cans out in rural areas. I wasn't hunting or at a range. This was perfectly legal then.
Even now, in most states (including California), if you are outside city limits, well away from roads or buildings, it's legal to discharge a firearm and shoot cans or a posted target.
Most call it plinking.
If you are careful about what is down range and shoot into a dirt bank, for example, it's quite safe.
So, in the example of a warning shot to scare off a dangerous animal deep in the back country, I don't think you are breaking any laws or endangering yourself or anyone else.
Of course whether it's effective at scaring the beast, or you even have time to get off a warning shot, is another issue and as another poster said probably wouldn't come up very often.
I believe she jest him by that much...(Maxwell Smart)
Hell, they do it all the time in New York City, the popo that is.
I guess folks have just had enough of being robbed.
It really rests with the investigating officer(s) and the DA with what to do about the whole incident.
Personally, I don't do warning shots period.
But, upon reflection, some of the guys I've worked with couldn't hit nothing with
their first shot anyhows...Good officers, just poor shots when under stress.
And some couldn't even hit the ground with their own hat on the first couple of tries.
.
__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"
Last edited by keith44spl; 11-29-2015 at 10:30 AM.
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.
A local women with no permit.
Case being sent to grand jury.
I anticipate a no bill. Waco Tx politics are way to strange to explain.
The law in Texas is clear on this matter. Internet morality experts are going to say all sorts of junk. The law actually trumps internet (who woulda thunk it?)
Warning shot is also covered in the Texas Penal Code I posted earlier.
I'm suggesting that the law in your state probably has this all covered, and it's available. Just be glad you didn't have to memorize it.
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?
As for the OPs linked vid, I'd have to ask "How do you know it was a warning shot?, maybe she just missed." After all, most gals around this part of the country are armed, that oughta be "warning" enough.
The difference is that in Texas, the law authorizes the use of deadly force as a response to certain property crimes. That doesn't mean that they aren't property crimes.
You MADE that area, by any reasonable definition, a "range".
Nonsense. By no definition is outdoor unsupervised shooting in an undesignated area "a range". We're talking law here.[/QUOTE]
As I recall, it was stated that it was legal to shoot in the area. It was a de facto range.
The difference is that in Texas, the law authorizes the use of deadly force as a response to certain property crimes. That doesn't mean that they aren't property crimes.
Thanks for 'splainin' TPC to me. I'm just uh ol' dumb redneck
So your point is? (I really do want to know, what bearing that your definition of "property crime" has to do with use of force or deadly force to secure the return of property?) The code I showed also covers so called warning shots.
Thanks for 'splainin' TPC to me. I'm just uh ol' dumb redneck
So your point is? (I really do want to know, what bearing that your definition of "property crime" has to do with use of force or deadly force to secure the return of property?) The code I showed also covers so called warning shots.
My point is that I frequently come across people, especially the mutant relatives of deceased armed robbers, who equate pointing a gun at somebody and threatening to kill them if they don't relinquish some item to which the taker is not entitled, with stealing a bottle of Red Bull off of a shelf, with no threat of violence. They claim since the perpetrator "just" wants your money (or your gym shoes, or your bomber jacket or your car), it's a "property crime" and doesn't merit the use of deadly force in self-defense, and furthermore that you have some undefined DUTY to give up whatever is demanded at gunpoint.
I'm never going to shoot somebody crawling OUT of my living room window with my fifteen year old VCR.
If you kick in my door, or if you FORCIBLY try to relieve me of ANYTHING, be it a TV, a TV Guide, or a TransAm through the use of armed force (club, knife, gun, etc.) you're going to get shot until I no longer perceive you as a threat.
Doesn't the perp get placed into imminent danger of death, thus justifying the perp shooting the warning shot shooter in self defense? ...other than the perp starting the while incident.
This is circular logic and isn't relevant here. If the fleeing suspect had a gun then the shoot was justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmort666
Home invasion = crime against a person.
There is no legal definition I'm aware of for Home Invasion. It is a term that is bandied around by the media to make news more scary sounding. The term home invasion has been used by statisticians to include both break ins with people home and without people home.
If you look on the internet, you'll find statistics for any term you can dream up. However, the FBI doesn't include home invasion in their list of crimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old TexMex
As for the OPs linked vid, I'd have to ask "How do you know it was a warning shot?, maybe she just missed."
It's a reasonable question. However, to me it looks as though she raises her arms just prior to the shot. In any case, even in Texas, she had no legal basis to justify her shot. She wasn't in danger, there was no property being molested at that time and there were a lot of innocent people standing by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old TexMex
After all, most gals around this part of the country are armed, that oughta be "warning" enough.
Yeah? I hope you're right, but I'll bet the number is more like 1 in 10 that is armed rather than most.
If it's legal to bowl in my back yard, does that make it a bowling alley? I s'pose so, in Ohio
If you set up bowling pins, yeah. It does.
What's the LEGAL definition of a range in a place that allows you to shoot? Does it require four walls and a roof? Turning targets? A target return system?
My best friend has an assault course set up on in the woods on his parents' farm. Is it NOT a range? If not, what IS it? A bowling alley?
Gentlemen, the discussion about what is a range and what isn't is far off topic. Please continue that discussion elsewhere. I'd rather not have this thread locked because two guys can't agree on something that's not about the OP.
There is no legal definition I'm aware of for Home Invasion.
I (and most of the people whom I know who've addressed the issue) define it as the INTENTIONAL and FORCIBLE entry into an occupied dwelling, with the intention of carrying out crimes against those currently occupying that dwelling.
If you seek out an unoccupied dwelling (whether it actually is unoccupied) and seek to unlawfully enter and take property without interacting with any inhabitants, that's a burglary.
The two animals who broke into the doctor's home in Connecticut, beat him half to death and raped and burned to death his wife and daughters, committed a home invasion. They knew IMMEDIATELY (if not beforehand) that the dwelling was occupied and chose to proceed to not only steal money, but to terrorize and physically harm the occupants.
When I was in college, somebody broke into the at the time unoccupied basement of my dorm and stole my ten speed. Nobody ever saw the perpetrators nor had any contact with them. That was a burglary.
What's the LEGAL definition of a range in a place that allows you to shoot? Does it require four walls and a roof? Turning targets? A target return system?
My best friend has an assault course set up on in the woods on his parents' farm. Is it NOT a range? If not, what IS it? A bowling alley?
Yes, it's a de facto bowling alley. If you can call open country a range, I can call anywhere legal to roll a bowling ball a bowling alley! (It is legal to roll a bowling ball at your friends place isn't it? hey, bowling pins are fun to shoot)
It's whatever you say it is Mort, but just because kittens are born in an oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.
This is reallygoing nowhere, so I'll go to the range.
Warning--no Warning shots
(who woulda thunk it?)
Linear Mode
