The risk of the warning shot

[WCCPHD]

I worked for an NC State law enforcement agency for over 30 years. Warning shots were strictly forbidden.

 

[Borderboss]

No kidding. My point is you don't know to what extent things have happened.

What is the phrase, "bad things happen because good people sit by and do nothing?"

Rosewood

Bad things also happen to good people because they assume the worse and overreact. You can only go with the information at hand.

 

[gerhard1]

In spite of it being Biden's advice, the warning shot is generally, like so many of you have said here, a bad idea.

 

[SMSgt]

Here's the homeowner's main problem in this scenario: "The victim armed himself, went outside, saw the (suspect) standing near his neighbor's car...."

The bigger problem is that he missed with his warning shot.

Warning shots are legal in Florida. I will not say they are advisable though.

 

[johngalt]

You should never fire a warning shot.

The law looks at everything from both sides. Look at your warning shot from the other guy's viewpoint.

You fired a shot. Now, the other guy is in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. You are perceived as shooting at the other guy. Now, the other guy may legally apply deadly force to you - he may shoot you to stop your apparent attack.

If you fire a warning shot, you are admitting that you were not in such fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. You did not use your gun in self defense. You used it to make noise.

What happens to your bullet with a warning shot? Shoot up, and it might fall on somebody's head. Shoot to the side, you might hit somebody. Shoot down, a ricochet might hit somebody.

Finally, when you are under attack, do you really want to deplete your limited ammunition supply making noise, instead of defending yourself?

NEVER FIRE WARNING SHOTS!

Can a person who was in the process of committing a crime successfully establish that he was not an aggressor or instigator of the situation? Seems like he would be on shaky grounds too.

 

[fredj338]

Besides the issue of playng armed security, there is a severe mind set deficite here. If you deploy a gun, be prepated to use it. Otherwise leave it in he holster. Training, mind set, skill level, otherwise leave it to those that have it. Call the cops.
Btw, warning shots in most states would be illegal not to mention reckless.

 

[fredj338]

So, what if the perp had already choked your neighbor to death and was working on his wife? Would you wait to see what is really going on? Let the cops deal with it?

Rosewood

Just how would you know that?

 

[fredj338]

"you should never fire a warning shot". Maybe so for a person, but I can see if you are in the wilderness and a grizzly is charging you, you are going to throw your gun down, wave your arms, clap etc and yell to scare him? I think not, I am going to fire a warning shot near the ground to get his attention if that doesn't work then I will dispatch him. I am going to keep that weapon ready in case the noise doesn't scare him. I could care less about a "ricochet" if in the woods.

Rosewood

A warning shot at a charging bear is wasting ammo you may need. Bears know what people are. If a bear comes, a warning shot wont impress it, he already knows what it is up against, why it chose a charge instead of run away.

 

[Kanewpadle]

If you’re thinking that you would confront a car prowler, think about this for a minute.

Your car is insured. If it isn’t, it can be replaced. You however cannot be replaced.

How much would it cost to replace your car versus possibly having to defend yourself in court?

In Washington State it is illegal to use a gun to protect your car. Don’t let anger dictate your reaction. Stay inside and call the police. Several car owners have gone to jail for murder and assault with a deadly weapon in this state over the last 10 years or so because they confronted a car prowler.

 

[Kanewpadle]

A warning shot at a charging bear is wasting ammo you may need. Bears know what people are. If a bear comes, a warning shot wont impress it, he already knows what it is up against, why it chose a charge instead of run away.

Warning shots work very well for bear. Fish and wildlife biologists use them quite often. That’s why their called “cracker shells”.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

There might be a time or a place for a warning shot (omitting animals; that's just such a different subject). Maybe. I am not sure what that time or place is. Where are you going to aim that shot? If you're standing in the middle of a yard with grass or dirt, okay, you could fire into the ground. Otherwise, where do you point it? Certainly not up. Certainly not at cement. Certainly not at your car. I do think that I could argue that if I'm at my front door and am confronted by someone in the street in front of my house I could successfully fire a round into the grass. But, as a normal, self defense thing, it's a total waste of time.

The guy has a knife. He's 20 or 25 feet away. Even 30 feet. You all know the drill, that a knife wielding bad guy can close that gap faster than you can get that second shot off. If you're going to play cop outside then you've decided to use deadly force. Use it, or stay inside, or go back inside. This is real world, not Hollyweird. Your gun is sufficient warning that you're prepared to use deadly force. If you're not thus prepared dial 911 and stay inside.

All the rest is commentary.

 

[Echo40]

I've never been able to grasp the concept of a warning shot. The way I see it is, if someone isn't already retreating by the time you've drawn your weapon, then they aren't going to retreat if you fire a warning shot either, so all a warning shot does is provide them with an opening as well as an incentive to attack you.

I don't want to have to shoot someone any more than the next peaceful, law-abiding citizen, but I didn't decide to carry a gun in hopes that it could repel an attack without having to shoot someone.

Folks who aren't prepared to actually shoot someone if it comes right down to it really would be better served carrying a Stun Gun or Pepper Spray because they will have far better chances of repelling an attack without bloodshed using one of those than they will with "warning shots" not to mention far less risk of collateral damage.

 

[lrrifleman]

This is an interesting dialog; however, I am not seeing two very important elements being addressed: the duty to retreat and the doctrine of equal force.

Does the jurisdiction where you are contemplating using a warning shot require the potential victim retreat before using lethal force? If it does, and you (claiming fear for your life) are engaging the "perceived" threat, you have obliterated your legal defense!

Does the jurisdiction where you are contemplating using a warning shot utilize a doctrine of equal force? In some jurisdictions, you may engage a perceived threat only with a level of force that is less than or equal to the level of force that is employed against you! In many respects, you must perceive your life to be in immanent and immediate danger in order to justify lethal force in order to neutralize a threat against yourself or another.

There is much more that needs to be taken into consideration when contemplating the use of deadly force in order to protect yourself or another than just being armed!

 

[biku324]

No kidding. My point is you don't know to what extent things have happened.

What is the phrase, "bad things happen because good people sit by and do nothing?"

Rosewood

In your legal defense you are limited to what you knew at the time, the instant, you used force. Coulda, mighta, maybe are inadmissible, and nothing you discovered after the fact is relevant to defending your decision.

 

[Rastoff]

So, everyone on here hears a noise in their yard at night, they are going to peek out the window and call the cops to come and investigate that it was a raccoon that knocked over the trash can. I don't buy it. I bet the majority of folks on here would go out and investigate just like every read blooded male would.

No, I wouldn't call the police for every sound. However, I can tell the difference between an animal scrabbling around and a person attempting to do damage or break into my house.

"you should never fire a warning shot". Maybe so for a person, but I can see if you are in the wilderness and a grizzly is charging you, you are going to throw your gun down, wave your arms, clap etc and yell to scare him? I think not, I am going to fire a warning shot near the ground to get his attention if that doesn't work then I will dispatch him. I am going to keep that weapon ready in case the noise doesn't scare him. I could care less about a "ricochet" if in the woods.

Rosewood

If a grizzly is charging you, you're going to fire a warning shot? Well, OK, if you say so. We'll notify your next of kin.

If a grizzly is charging me and I have a gun, I'm shooting. This is the very definition of a life threatening situation.

 

[rosewood]

No, I wouldn't call the police for every sound. However, I can tell the difference between an animal scrabbling around and a person attempting to do damage or break into my house.

If a grizzly is charging you, you're going to fire a warning shot? Well, OK, if you say so. We'll notify your next of kin.

If a grizzly is charging me and I have a gun, I'm shooting. This is the very definition of a life threatening situation.

Let's correct the wording. A grizzly is about to charge you.

 

[raljr1]

I am far from an expert in this area, but I always thought that the only time for a civilian to pull a gun is when they intend to pull the trigger. In this instance, outside my home, I would tell the perp to leave and do so quickly. If he advanced on me with a knife in his hand, and I pulled a gun, the only shot would be in his chest. I am not sure I would try to hold someone at gun point outside my home. (Inside my home would be a different story). If, as someone proposed, he had, unknown to me, committed a murder in one of the homes prior to breaking into my car, and he left at my command, I would consider finding and detaining him to be the job of the police.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Does the jurisdiction where you are contemplating using a warning shot utilize a doctrine of equal force? In some jurisdictions, you may engage a perceived threat only with a level of force that is less than or equal to the level of force that is employed against you! In many respects, you must perceive your life to be in immanent and immediate danger in order to justify lethal force in order to neutralize a threat against yourself or another.

Actually, this was addressed by posters who said that firing a warning shot could lead to legal trouble as it meant that the person firing the warning shot was not actually in fear for his life, thus deadly force was not justified.

 

[tops]

Let's correct the wording. A grizzly is about to charge you.

I have never saw a Grizzly and doubt if I ever will but for me "about too charge" and "charge" is a fraction of a second difference and I can't see wasting time and bullets on warning shots. Larry

 

[JS Esq.]

Warning shots work very well for bear. Fish and wildlife biologists use them quite often. That’s why their called “cracker shells”.

In just skimming the thread I initially read this as, "Warning shots work very well for fish". Thanks for the laugh!