Why "warning shots" are a no-go

[Old cop]

I have a friend who was then new to CCW when he got into a road rage thing w/another driver. I had to remind him he was "carrying" and had a moral obligation not to make things worse. Besides, I did not want to be forced into a position to back his play if things went to guns. We were both in our 60s then and much too old to be acting like this.

 

[Absalom]

Given the legal situation and the practical risk, warning shots should simply not be on your menu. In very specialized circumstances, like with animals that are not coming at you directly and which you have good reason not to harm, there may be exceptions.

Be aware that this here is an American view of things. In other countries, warning shots before using aimed deadly force are not just allowed, but may be required by law, unless you can explain afterwards why there was no opportunity or no time for one. Having talked to European police officers, they were usually surprised that US officers are often not permitted to fire warning shots.

 

[Walkingwolf]

New York City Police fire a lot of warning shots, or they just can't hit the broad side of a barn.

OK all joking aside, not only warning shots are a no-no so is spray, and pray. A miss should be treated just the same as a warning shot.

 

[Warren Sear]

You mean to imply that Vice President Biden was wrong?

"If there's ever a problem," Biden said he told his wife, Jill, "just walk out on the balcony here--walk out, put that double barrel shot gun and fire two blasts outside the house -- I promise you whoever is coming in ... You don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use...Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"

I kinda miss the folksy wisdom of ol' "Plugs". Just kiddin'.

 

[DocB]

I have fired warning shots numerous times in my life to scare off packs of wild dogs. Yeah, I live in Georgia. so we have that kind of thing around here. I really don't want to kill a half dozen dogs because I like dogs, but they can be a problem. A bullet fired up in the air will come down, but not at a speed any greater than a pellet of hail falling from the sky. We've all been hit by those. . .at least here in Georgia. They hurt, but that's about it. I did read once that a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building could kill a person on the ground. It would attain maximum speed way before hitting the ground. They told us that when I was growing up as a kid in New York to keep us from throwing things off the roofs of buildings. . .which we did anyway. Maybe it's true. I should add that you always fire a warning shot straight up in the air so it will be reduced to a simple falling object when it returns to earth. I've actually been hit by shotgun pellets coming back down. Kind of like a hard rain.

 

[forrestinmathews]

I have fired warning shots numerous times in my life to scare off packs of wild dogs. Yeah, I live in Georgia. so we have that kind of thing around here. I really don't want to kill a half dozen dogs because I like dogs, but they can be a problem. A bullet fired up in the air will come down, but not at a speed any greater than a pellet of hail falling from the sky. We've all been hit by those. . .at least here in Georgia. They hurt, but that's about it. I did read once that a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building could kill a person on the ground. It would attain maximum speed way before hitting the ground. They told us that when I was growing up as a kid in New York to keep us from throwing things off the roofs of buildings. . .which we did anyway. Maybe it's true.

If you didn't fire warning shots there wouldn't be packs of wild dogs roaming around. Do you think that there are good Samaritans with hotdog stands feeding them? No, they scavenge and hunt for food. All well and good until you become the food.

If the projectile never leaves the ballistic arc you can kill someone sight unseen at great distance. Only if it completely stops and then free falls is the bullet less than lethal. Still could hurt like hell.

Where exactly in Georgia? Sounds like Quigley Down Under...dingos everywhere and everybody throwing bullets around... LOL

 

[federali]

Excellent Opening Post

Really good advice. Another dumb move is to pursue the intruder. Once you do that, you are no longer acting in self-defense but are attempting (I assume) a citizens' arrest. something that most lawyers strongly advise against. Also, NY is not a stand-your-ground state. There is an obligation to retreat (except inside your residence) if it can be done with complete safety.

The intruder was breaking into a tool shed, which, I think, is simple trespassing. Deadly force is usually not justified to prevent or deter a pure property crime.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Okay, this aggravates me but I am not attacking you personally.
Nobody told you that in your CHL class. Or, more to the point, nobody should have stated that as the law in Texas. There is no Texas statute with respect to warning shots. However, there are statutes that by implication could be taken to be ban on warning shots.

For instance - and this is from a Texas authorized public website so you can look the statute up anytime you are in the mood:



Warning shots, per se, are not described in the statute. You have to be a fool to fire one, but that's what this discussion is about in the first instance. As a Texas lawyer and CHL (now LTC) instructor I take great umbrage at the Penal Code being wrongly cited. Nothing personal. Except against your instructor, my friend, who clearly told you something that is not stated in the law.

This seems kinda confusing:

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

Taken literally, you can't fire a gun in self defense either, unless you're on a public road or at a sport shooting range. I see no exception for discharging a firearm in self defense . . .

 

[Wise_A]

If it's not present or specifically allowed (odd, but most state codes are miserably-written) then the "doctrine of competing harms" comes into play.

Let's say you get lost in the woods in summer. You stumble around for two days, hungry and dehydrated, before you come across a cabin. You break in, drink some water, eat some food, and use a telephone to call for help.

Would you expect to be arrested for burglarizing the cabin when help arrives? Of course not. The harm of not breaking into the cabin (risk of death) far outweighs the harm of committing burglary.

 

[Absalom]

So last night I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with one of my retired cop buddies. He generally agreed that warning shots are problematic for many of the reasons given here, but he also cautioned against being too absolute and excluding options.

One of his observations was (and I definitely see this reading through this thread again), that civilian "gun guys" get overly fixated on situations where they face determined armed attackers meaning to kill them. In such a scenario, warning shots obviously would be dangerous nonsense. Statistically, however, that's a fairly small percentage of actual situations both for cops and civilian gun owners.

Ambiguous, confused situations involving trespassers, burglars which may be armed or unarmed, muggers, or overly aggressive people, maybe verbal disputes that escalate, are much more common. And then things aren't so clear-cut. Escalating straight to aimed deadly force may not be as easy and straightforward as you think it will be.

People generally don't doubt that a cop's gun is real and that he'll shoot if necessary. Not so with civilians. My friend referred to several cases of (non-fatal) defensive shootings where the shot aggressor's explanation was along the lines of "I didn't think the gun was real" or "I didn't think he'd pull the trigger". Especially when facing an unarmed aggressor, a warning shot into a safe backstop like soft soil, if safely possible, might convince him and terminate the threat without injury.

So as my friend said, obviously don't fire wild shots, but keep your options open. No matter how righteous you feel about using aimed deadly force, you don't want the hassle if you can avoid it.

 

[usmc2427765]

If your life or the life of a family member is seriously threatened, a warning shot between the eyes is very effective.

 

[InsideWaist]

 

[swsig]

Okay, this aggravates me but I am not attacking you personally.
Nobody told you that in your CHL class. Or, more to the point, nobody should have stated that as the law in Texas. There is no Texas statute with respect to warning shots. However, there are statutes that by implication could be taken to be ban on warning shots.

For instance - and this is from a Texas authorized public website so you can look the statute up anytime you are in the mood:



Warning shots, per se, are not described in the statute. You have to be a fool to fire one, but that's what this discussion is about in the first instance. As a Texas lawyer and CHL (now LTC) instructor I take great umbrage at the Penal Code being wrongly cited. Nothing personal. Except against your instructor, my friend, who clearly told you something that is not stated in the law.

That's why I said, "As I recall...'. Thanks for clearing that up. The class was 2 1/2 years ago and your post did jog my memory in another regard -- I took notes during the class but had forgotten all about them. After some rummaging, I found them. Here are the relevant portions of my notes, verbatim:

"Use of force
...
Retreat is always the best option, if available. Though TX [law] says there is "no duty" to retreat, it's best to do so anyway. ... 'Warning shot' means you had a chance to retreat. [Implying that there still could be legal problems if you take the shot.]
...
Home break-in. Castle law allows you to assume that break-ins intend to do you harm. Even attempting to enter justifies deadly force. They don't have to be inside. But don't shoot until you've Id'd the target. (Warning shots are illegal in TX)"

I don't think I would have put that in my notes, unless the instructor had said it. However I can't completely discount the possibility that I inferred that from the presentation, which also included the following case study:

During the home break-in presentation, the instructor told about a case where a homeowner fired a high warning shot through his front door when someone pounded on it late at night. It turned out the guy at the front door was very tall, and the shot went through his head, killing him. It also turned out that the deceased was the teenage son of the next door neighbor who was extremely drunk, and apparently thought he was at his own house. Legal stuff ensued.

Legal, or not, I got the message that warning shots are a bad idea.

 

[Wise_A]

People generally don't doubt that a cop's gun is real and that he'll shoot if necessary. Not so with civilians. My friend referred to several cases of (non-fatal) defensive shootings where the shot aggressor's explanation was along the lines of "I didn't think the gun was real" or "I didn't think he'd pull the trigger". Especially when facing an unarmed aggressor, a warning shot into a safe backstop like soft soil, if safely possible, might convince him and terminate the threat without injury.

So as my friend said, obviously don't fire wild shots, but keep your options open. No matter how righteous you feel about using aimed deadly force, you don't want the hassle if you can avoid it.

In most places, a warning shot is considered deadly force. There is no distinction about whether you meant to hit an individual or not. Just the same as how brandishing results in an assault charge. If you can't justify shooting someone, you usually can also not justify shooting in their general direction.

Thus, the warning shot is a catch-22. Either the danger is grave and imminent and thus demands use of immediate deadly force, or the danger is not imminent, in which case deadly force is not permitted.

If you're concerned about getting your point across, there's a wealth of information out there on the subject, covering everything from body language (both reading, as well as using body language to communicate your message), to verbage, to movement.

 

[forrestinmathews]

I administer several warning shots a week into targets on my property. So far it has helped immensely...crime is way down. Nothing says go away like a shotgun blast or magazine dump at oh dark how about right now! Some nights I need a whole box of shells to get back to sleep. Just so they know I'm not a tacticool bird hunter I leave the patterns and groups in cardboard lying in the driveway. You wouldn't believe how safe the neighborhood is. The n'er-do-wells have all been rehabilitated or moved on, but we all know rehabilitation is a never ending process.

This is not advocating warning shots in any kind of confrontation. This is just a humorous poking of fun at this stupid idea. Do call ahead before visiting...

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

 

[Rastoff]

...fired a warning shot at the burglar,...

This is important phrasing. As far as I'm concerned, if the home owner wasn't in fear of death or great bodily harm, this is attempted murder.

Your responsible for every round so if your justified to use it,.. use it.

This is the important factor. You are responsible for every round that comes out of your gun. If you kill/injure someone, it had better be in self-defense.

Taken literally, you can't fire a gun in self defense either, unless you're on a public road or at a sport shooting range. I see no exception for discharging a firearm in self defense . . .

Well, you would have to read the whole law...

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

 

[Rastoff]

Dog #1 was the attacker. Dog #2 was on a leash being walked by it's owner.

A week later the same dog attacked a woman walking her dog and was severely mauled and her dog killed. Dog #1 was euthanized.

You should have shot the dog. You were being assaulted, it had already seriously injured one man and you would have been justified in being in fear of great bodily harm. The later actions of the dog prove that you would have been justified. Of course you couldn't know that at the time.

He who hesitates is lost. We are generally good people and don't want to harm others. Because of this we hesitate. That hesitation is something bad guys, and animals, use to their advantage. It always costs the good guy.

A warning shot would not have been justified. A center mass shot would have been.

I'm sorry this happened and I wish it hadn't, but it could have been much worse for you. I'm glad it wasn't.

 

[Kanewpadle]

You should have shot the dog. You were being assaulted, it had already seriously injured one man and you would have been justified in being in fear of great bodily harm. The later actions of the dog prove that you would have been justified. Of course you couldn't know that at the time.

He who hesitates is lost. We are generally good people and don't want to harm others. Because of this we hesitate. That hesitation is something bad guys, and animals, use to their advantage. It always costs the good guy.

A warning shot would not have been justified. A center mass shot would have been.

I'm sorry this happened and I wish it hadn't, but it could have been much worse for you. I'm glad it wasn't.

Your're probably right. My immediate thoughts were the little girls. It was their beloved dog that about to be shot. And I had concerns about hitting a running dog with a frontal area about half the same of a grown man. I'm sure I could have. But as you said, I hesitated.

 

[WuzzFuzz]

ISCS Yoda

If you would please, could you clarify item #7 which quotes Section 250.001 Local Gov Code, vs the original title of Texas Penal Code.

Is the Local Government Code thrown in with the Texas Penal Code?

Item #7 seems to be something added to the Texas Code.


WuzzFuzz