Why "warning shots" are a no-go

Status
Not open for further replies.
As the old general rule of thumb goes - never point your muzzle at anything you do not intend to destroy or kill. I always add a follow up - "and don't pull the trigger unless you are prepared to deal with any and all consequences."

Of course, at a range (or other similar setup), that area is kind of designed for you to destroy something (i.e. the target) - but even there you have to be careful where that muzzle is pointing. You want to hit the target - not something (or, worse, someone) that you're not suppose to hit.
 
I view warning shots, and missing the threat as the same. They are both dangerous, and should not happen.

I believe generally that if a person is justified but misses their threat they will not be prosecuted, as long as they do not injure an innocent. A good friend and attorney once told me when having simular discussions "you are either justified, or you are not".

So an unarmed person who is justified to use deadly force, but does not, it does not limit their ability to do so if armed. If they are armed with a cane, and raise the cane to warn the attacker they are justified, as long as they are justified. It does not matter if they hit the threat, if they strike a child by missing the threat with the cane they are sill responsible.

I believe in liberty, personal choice, and responsibility. If you are going to take any shot YOU are responsible if that shot causes property damage, or injures another that was not the threat. If it is legal, and can be done safely, and the shooter is clearly justified it is their personal decision at the time. It doesn't matter what I think, as a general rule people tend to ignore other people's opinion, and do what they want.
 
Last edited:
I'd guess that the general prohibition on shooting in certain areas referred to in the Texas statute cited is limited by the defense of necessity, and I sure as heck would not worry about it.

As for: "We were taught to never fire warning shots, and never to fire at vehicles.", I have two thoughts. One is that YES, as pointed out by others, there may be some odd circumstance in which a warning shot is not completely stupid, but I still doubt one will ever be wrong if they never fire a warning shot. I do recall a discussion on here a couple years back in which someone who simply was not prepared to use lethal force was advocating for warning shots as an option, and if I replied, I am sure I had to work hard to avoid getting banned.

As for not firing at vehicles, while there are always tactical considerations (crowding, etc.), a blanket prohibition of that nature is so Stucking Fupid that the the administrator in question cannot be redeemed, and the only response is a Loudermill hearing, a trespass notice, and a guardianship. The excellent discussion of such in Patrick and Hall's book refutes it well. There is a reason (many, actually) that I see we need a "Snopes" for command officers.
 
Kanewpadle said:
My immediate thoughts were the little girls.
Click to expand...
And you were right to think about that. It's what separates the good guys from the bad.

Don't think for one second that I'm "Monday morning quarterbacking" this and trying to say you made some horrible mistake. You made a split second decision and things went OK for you. It's not your fault that the dog went on to attack someone else.

I think it's far to easy for us to sit here and critique situations we weren't involved in. Here is my all time favorite quote and I think it applies to what we're talking about:

“In marching, in mobs, in football games, and in war, outlines become vague; real things become unreal and a fog creeps over the mind. Tension and excitement, weariness, movement--all merge in one great gray dream, so that when it is over, it is hard to remember how it was when you killed men or ordered them to be killed. Then other people who were not there tell you what it was like and you say vaguely, 'yes, I guess that's how it was.'” ― John Steinbeck, The Moon Is Down

You came out OK and saved at least one person from serious injury. I wasn't there. I can only speculate. You didn't fire a warning shot and I don't think it would have helped anyway. Ya done good my friend.
 
Breakaway500 said:
Warning shots are something Hollywood invented. It's like telling someone you are going to punch them. I can understand a shot across the bow at sea..but in a personal conflict,no way am I giving anyone a chance to shoot first...
Click to expand...

Almost like shooting a firearm out of the BG's hand, another Hollywood fallacy, and some still think racking the slide on a 12ga would send a BG high on drugs scurrying away if fear. I don't do warning shoots, if something calls for a warning shot I would use pepper spray first, as I carry both, and there would seem there was no need for deadly force. The situation would dictate what I went for first. Deadly force would be a firearm, having time to react to a non life threating, animal attack, threat pepper spray.
 
Walkingwolf said:
I am sorry, but I think I clearly saw the word sniper. As in using a rifle designed for precision shooting. Sheeeesh.
Click to expand...

Patterning, where the subject does an action in a predictable cadence and the shot can be timed according to the repeated action. That's how the "sniper" did it. At those distances they are sharpshooters or marksmen at best.
 
forrestinmathews said:
Patterning, where the subject does an action in a predictable cadence and the shot can be timed according to the repeated action. That's how the "sniper" did it. At those distances they are sharpshooters or marksmen at best.
Click to expand...

IIRC the subject was sitting in his chair pretty much not moving at the time. At the distance that the sniper took the shot it would be pretty easy for most shooters with the right rifle. Heck the old Marlin 336 I had could shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards from a rest. There are varmint hunters that take these shots at 200 yards or more. I think a much less than 100 yard shot with a precision rifle, and a trained officer is not indicative of drawing a handgun fast draw, and shooting the gun out of the opponents hand. I think that kind of reasoning is~~well silly.
 
I'm just telling you how the guy figured out that he could make that shot. He made the shot based on a pattern of repeated behavior where he believed the gun would be stationary at that point for a period of time sufficient to strike it with a bullet. I'm not saying I can do it and especially not that you and your rifle can do it. I'm not say that it has anything to do with warning shots and concealed carry. Just how the guy made the shot.
Now to ruffle feathers for fun...the .30-30 is a terrible cartridge...or was it a .35? ��
 
forrestinmathews said:
Warning shots are a liability. Not all self defense involves a bad guy. Sometimes it is an animal. Not all animals understand gunfire to be a bad thing. Do you really want to have one less round available to deal with a problem? If you're considering warning shots you have not committed to killing your opponent. Get a stick or a shovel they are more versatile. They don't make noises which cause people who want explanations to appear after the fact.
Click to expand...

You should not be committed to "killing your opponent". Whisky Tango Foxtrot Over? You had best leave your gun in a locker until you understand this.
 
Kanewpadle said:
Another member here fired a warning shot during a dog attack. I gave him a hard time and others did as well.

But now having experienced the same, I can't say that I too thought about doing the same.

A few years ago I arrived home from the shooting range. I sat down to lunch and a few minutes later I heard a lot of screaming outside. I stood up and looked out the window and saw two dogs fighting. Several people were there trying to break up the fight.

Dog #1 was the attacker. Dog #2 was on a leash being walked by it's owner. In a matter a seconds dog #1 grabbed #2 by the throat and would not let go. I put my house slippers on and went out the front door. On the way out I grabbed a baton style stun gun.

As I ran the 50 or so yards I saw the owner of dog #2 hit dog #1 on top of the head with his fist. Dog #2 let go and bit the owner on the upper arm which resulted in a wound that was bleeding profusely. Dog #1 then resumed his attack on dog #2 by grabbing by the throat again.

As I closed in a turned the stun gun on. When I got close enough I put the stun gun on dog #1 rear end and pushed the button. The dog jumped straight up about 6 feet and then ran off. He ran about 40 yards and immediately turned around and came back towards us.

I was still armed after returning from the range. For a brief second I considered drawing and shooting the dog. I had a good clear backstop. Everyone was behind me. I decided against it because the dogs owner was there as well as her three little girls all under the age of 7. The owners of the attacking dog tried to separate the dogs earlier but at 5' 2" and a hundred pounds, she was unsuccessful.

As the dog closed the distance I pushed the button on the stun gun to deter him. Nothing. The batteries were gone. So I drew my gun and dropped to a knee. The dog sensed that things may no longer be in his favor and stopped.

I heard two sirens. One ambulance and the second cops. I put my gun away and let them handle things. Nobody mentioned my gun. I then became a witness.

Of all thing the owner of dog #1 got a TICKET! The dog was allowed to remain at home. A week later the same dog attacked a woman walking her dog and was severely mauled and her dog killed. Dog #1 was euthanized.

If I didn't have the stun gun, I may well have fired a warning shot into the grass instead of trying to shoot a dog that was running towards me and hoping that hit it with one or more rounds.

Where two legged attackers are involved, no, I believe they are a liability. But animals that are hell bent on attacking are very difficult to deter and either don't understand verbal commands or just ignore them altogether.

So, In the same situation, yes I may fire a warning shot. Am I wrong? Maybe.

Sorry for the long story and the dog #1 and 2 bit. I don't want to state the breed of dogs to start another argument.
Click to expand...

Ten bucks says they were pit bulls.
 
I guess I don't understand the mindset of those who carry a pistol because they would without hesitation shoot a human being who presented a threat to them, but would clearly hesitate to shoot a charging mindless mass of teeth and fury without the capacity to understand "Stop, or I'll shoot . . . "

Kanewpadle said:
Another member here fired a warning shot during a dog attack. I gave him a hard time and others did as well.

But now having experienced the same, I can't say that I too thought about doing the same.

A few years ago I arrived home from the shooting range. I sat down to lunch and a few minutes later I heard a lot of screaming outside. I stood up and looked out the window and saw two dogs fighting. Several people were there trying to break up the fight.

Dog #1 was the attacker. Dog #2 was on a leash being walked by it's owner. In a matter a seconds dog #1 grabbed #2 by the throat and would not let go. I put my house slippers on and went out the front door. On the way out I grabbed a baton style stun gun.

As I ran the 50 or so yards I saw the owner of dog #2 hit dog #1 on top of the head with his fist. Dog #2 let go and bit the owner on the upper arm which resulted in a wound that was bleeding profusely. Dog #1 then resumed his attack on dog #2 by grabbing by the throat again.

As I closed in a turned the stun gun on. When I got close enough I put the stun gun on dog #1 rear end and pushed the button. The dog jumped straight up about 6 feet and then ran off. He ran about 40 yards and immediately turned around and came back towards us.

I was still armed after returning from the range. For a brief second I considered drawing and shooting the dog. I had a good clear backstop. Everyone was behind me. I decided against it because the dogs owner was there as well as her three little girls all under the age of 7. The owners of the attacking dog tried to separate the dogs earlier but at 5' 2" and a hundred pounds, she was unsuccessful.

As the dog closed the distance I pushed the button on the stun gun to deter him. Nothing. The batteries were gone. So I drew my gun and dropped to a knee. The dog sensed that things may no longer be in his favor and stopped.

I heard two sirens. One ambulance and the second cops. I put my gun away and let them handle things. Nobody mentioned my gun. I then became a witness.

Of all thing the owner of dog #1 got a TICKET! The dog was allowed to remain at home. A week later the same dog attacked a woman walking her dog and was severely mauled and her dog killed. Dog #1 was euthanized.

If I didn't have the stun gun, I may well have fired a warning shot into the grass instead of trying to shoot a dog that was running towards me and hoping that hit it with one or more rounds.

Where two legged attackers are involved, no, I believe they are a liability. But animals that are hell bent on attacking are very difficult to deter and either don't understand verbal commands or just ignore them altogether.

So, In the same situation, yes I may fire a warning shot. Am I wrong? Maybe.

Sorry for the long story and the dog #1 and 2 bit. I don't want to state the breed of dogs to start another argument.
Click to expand...
 
Muss Muggins said:
I guess I don't understand the mindset of those who carry a pistol because they would without hesitation shoot a human being who presented a threat to them, but would clearly hesitate to shoot a charging mindless mass of teeth and fury without the capacity to understand "Stop, or I'll shoot . . . "
Click to expand...

Well some dogs are very gun shy, we had to give away hunting dogs for that reason. I have a boat horn mounted on my bicycle after a dog attack. I found I could not get to my gun without crashing. Then the dog was almost on top of me, it was the horn blast from a driver, and him trying to run over the dog that made the dog bolt.

Not saying I would not shoot a dog, because I have about 10 years ago. A charging pit bull on my own property.
 
Hey guys, let's not go down the pit bull path here. Someone will post that there is no such thing as a pit bull. Someone else will come along an agree with them, then say pit bulls get a bad rap. Then I'll think to myself if there is no such thing as a pit bull how can they get a bad rap... then my head will explode. :D

Moving along...
 
Warren Sear said:
You should not be committed to "killing your opponent". Whisky Tango Foxtrot Over? You had best leave your gun in a locker until you understand this.
Click to expand...

When I align the sights on concentrations of vital organs and press the trigger, I am using deadly force. The possibility exists for the deadly force to make the opponent very dead, ergo when I am committed to using deadly force on an adversary, I am therefore also committed to killing them. I'm using the most effective ballistic technology available and directing it with a practiced and honed precision. Their death is not the stated goal of the exercise, but it is a distinct and regrettable possibility. It is unfortunate that you have mistaken the meaning of my previous post.
 
Muss Muggins said:
I guess I don't understand the mindset of those who carry a pistol because they would without hesitation shoot a human being who presented a threat to them, but would clearly hesitate to shoot a charging mindless mass of teeth and fury without the capacity to understand "Stop, or I'll shoot . . . "
Click to expand...

Like you cops like to say "you weren't there".

If you read closely, the dog broke off the attack. So........... That must mean that he hadn't crossed the point of no return.

You don't understand because you're a cop. You're used to such things. Us "regular folk" aren't. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Faulkner
Grocery store shooting in Fordyce, Arkansas
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
steelslaver
steelslaver
B
Multiple Secret Service Agents Placed on Leave
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
3K
Beemerguy53
Beemerguy53
Faulkner
Tales from the Faulkner Files: Vehicle vs deer
2
Replies
34
Views
996
steelslaver
steelslaver
biku324
A Cautionary Tale - A Gun is Not a Magic Wand
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Muss Muggins
Muss Muggins
C
Is Aggravated Stupidity a crime?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chief Wiggums
C

Latest posts

Back
Top