Warning shots- Good, Bad, Illegal?

[Rastoff]

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?

 

[gunnails]

Verry poor decision, she should probably be charged with attempted murder.

In that situation she should of kept the weapon holstered.

 

[kenv1950]

I wonder where the bullet ended up ?
Always know whats beyond your target

 

[Camster]

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.

 

[OKFC05]

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.

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

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.

 

[KarmannGhia]

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.

 

[153]

That lady watched too many westerns ...

That said, Actor Walter Brennan in an old John Ford western told one of his bad boy sons "If you pull a gun, kill a man!"

 

[bigggbbruce]

No imminent threat.

She should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm.

 

[Doug M.]

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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

 

[KSDeputy]

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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.

John

 

[flintsghost]

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.

 

[gen3guy]

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.

 

[Hapworth]

If it completely violates three of the four cardinal rules, the answer should be self-evident.

If you're not defending yourself or someone else from unjustified imminent death or grievous bodily harm, the answer should be self-evident.

Rastoff, if I didn't know, respect and like you so much, I'd say you were trolling. Funny video, though...

 

[Old cop]

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?

 

[raylan007]

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]

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?

 

[all5x]

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.