More than once, it has been mentioned that a verbal warning could be given to BG to deter him from his present course of action. At what point would you consider a warning shot appropriate?. Assuming the BG isn't deaf of course.

If that occasion for a warning shot should arrive, and you have a semi-auto, would you take the shot and hope your gun doesn't jam?

Personally, I think it's a waste of ammo.

With 30 plus years of law enforcement lots of it as a trainer I don't belive in or train warning shots.

If you have the legal right to defend yourself or others against an attacker using deadly force.

One should be shooting to stop the threat if it is safe to do so.

If the situation is such that you think a warning shot is going to stop the threat I don't belive one should be shooting because most likely the threat isn't serious enough yet. Other wise you would be shooting to defend one self. If the attacker hasn't listened to the times you yell at them to stop, don't come any closer, drop the weapon. They most likely will not pay attention to a warning shot.

That said I have known of a couple of situations that warning shots were fired against impact weapon carring attackers that after the shot they dropped the weapon. One a knife other a hammer.

I belive they wanted to commit suicide by cop but when the gun went off they decided it wasn't what they wanted after all. Smart by the cop who knows it worked those times they did not have to shoot the person. But police work is differant then defending oneself. Over all police are surpose to use the less amount of force that one can get away with and still get the job done.

With animals I think that warning shots might work a bit better but only if one has the time and skill to place a stopping shot after one fires a warning/get the heck out of here shot.

If it comes down to and your really belive that great bodliy harm is going to be done or your life taken. One should be shooting to stop the threat by the quickest means possiable.

NEVER !! You would waste a shot that might be very necessary and then you have to be concerned about where that bullet goes !
Go back to the basics - you have the right to shoot to prevent serious injury or death.If you are in that situation you shoot WITHOUT any warning to or discussion with the BG !
A BG loaded with drugs and alcohol may not react to any 'threat' ,words, racking a shot gun or even warning shots.

No warning shots, ever! That statement does not come from some macho attitude but from a legal point of view. A warning shot\s will only get you in trouble.

I'm O.K. with a warning shot. Think about it, 1 warning shot center body mass, If you keep coming, I'm gonna shoot you again.

I am not aware of any state that requires a warning shot. In addition, a warning shot could bring charges of reckless endangerment. Be aware of the laws in your state that permit the use of deadly force and act within those laws.
Peter.

The only warning shot I would give is if there were two intruders and as I shot the first one it could be considered a warning shot to the second intruder.

When you present a firearm in the midst of a confrontation, you provide the other party with legal defense for use of lethal force.

"He drew a gun on me."

If you have legal justification to use lethal force then your "warning shot" should be CENTER OF MASS.

The bad guy doesn't get to know you're armed until the bullets are coming out of the muzzle toward his sorry ass.

BANG, BANG . . . BANG . . .

I do not know of a single Police Dept, or other LEO Agency that allows warning shots.

If you gotta pull it, the warnings over-- time to shoot!

American law enforcement "shooting policies" circa 1960's/70's generally included the authorized use of a "warning shot." Now, generally not. At least in contemporary agencies.

First of all, while they may be effective in some cases, credible research shows that they do not work in most cases.

And secondly, for many reasons, it's a poor tactic.

I don't "present" my weapon, and I don't use warning shots. I draw and engage the target with aimed fire until the threat is passed.

Interestly, I just returned from Namibia where I learned that citizens using guns for self protection are required to employ TWO warning shots before being allowed the use of deadly force. How many times you think that happens in the the bush?

quote:

Originally posted by wino:
I'm O.K. with a warning shot. Think about it, 1 warning shot center body mass, If you keep coming, I'm gonna shoot you again.

Yep!!

My understanding from the classes and instruction that I have received is that you discharge your firearm as a "last resort to stop". If this be the case, why would you fire a warning shot?
GWB

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
My understanding from the classes and instruction that I have received is that you discharge your firearm as a "last resort to stop". If this be the case, why would you fire a warning shot?
GWB

I have to concur.

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
My understanding from the classes and instruction that I have received is that you discharge your firearm as a "last resort to stop". If this be the case, why would you fire a warning shot?
GWB

'cause you missed--

no warning shot.... center mass.... and several taps at that... not just a single shot...

I say NO on warning shots. But as a kid, I saw a cop do one with a car thief.

Hands of the thief were in the air immediately! No running!

Different times.

I remember a NY State Trooper who fired a warning shot at some car thieves and got some time off w/o pay.

1st round center mass RBCD! More shots unnecessary!

NO WARNING

quote:

Originally posted by drewhenrytnt:
1st round center mass RBCD! More shots unnecessary!

NO WARNING

Unless the perps are wearing body armor then it's a choice of head or groin.

Then I shoot for the throat or the foot.

Maybe I should be carrying KTWs except I don't want to injure or kill innocent bystanders.

When there is a threat simply producing your sidearm and aiming it at the attacker is the warning. I think this stops the threat more often than actully having to fire the weppon.

If you fire a warning, that can and probably will open up a can of worms that you won't be happy with. The attacker runs away and when he is cought by the police his claim will be that you tried to kill him. Or that you were robbing him etc.

quote:

Originally posted by David Culpepper:
The only warning shot I would give is if there were two intruders and as I shot the first one it could be considered a warning shot to the second intruder.

perp running at 2miles an hour fire warning shot perp now running at 15miles an hour. It's harder to hit a 15 mile an hour target than a 2 mile an hour target. 2 warning in bush= double tap to chest and then one round in head right????

In Texas where I live, a warning shot is against the law. Remember you are always responsible for all bullets that leave your barrel, if it ricochets of the ground or comes down after being fired into the air and injures or kills someone then you are guilty of a felony and loose your rights to firearm ownership.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
In Texas where I live, a warning shot is against the law. Remember you are always responsible for all bullets that leave your barrel, if it ricochets of the ground or comes down after being fired into the air and injures or kills someone then you are guilty of a felony and loose your rights to firearm ownership.

Please cite the law.

The use of a warning shot has been used successfully as "unacceptable provocation" by plaintiff's attorneys, just as racking a slide or pumping a shotgun have.

Gun-stupid juries have accepted the argument that the perp perceived this as a life threatening act on the part of the defender, elevating the incident to self-defense and subsequent wrongful death findings against the shooter. A lot of scumbags and/or the scumbag's next of kin have won large awards in civil cases using this strategy.

This had a lot to do with why police procedures now omit a warning shot. It has everthing to do with civilians making the first shot count for something more than noise and smoke.

Here in South Africa, the new (ish) act makes it mandatory that we fire a warning (into the ground, not into the air) first.

The same law makes it illegal to shoot someone in the back, so all they have to do is turn and walk away and technically speaking, you break the law if you shoot them.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Here in South Africa, the new (ish) act makes it mandatory that we fire a warning (into the ground, not into the air) first.

The same law makes it illegal to shoot someone in the back, so all they have to do is turn and walk away and technically speaking, you break the law if you shoot them.

Well, that changes the procedure for the double tap, eh? One in the ground and follow the recoil to the target.

quote:

shakari: Here in South Africa, the new (ish) act makes it mandatory that we fire a warning (into the ground, not into the air) first.

One in the target, then one in the ground.

No warning shot. If i have to shoot it be to stop him from doing what he was trying to do.

quote:

Originally posted by David Culpepper:
The only warning shot I would give is if there were two intruders and as I shot the first one it could be considered a warning shot to the second intruder.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Here in South Africa, the new (ish) act makes it mandatory that we fire a warning (into the ground, not into the air) first.

The same law makes it illegal to shoot someone in the back, so all they have to do is turn and walk away and technically speaking, you break the law if you shoot them.

It has always been written in the law here that shooting a fleeing agressor is an homicide.

Police can shoot only in self defense and defence of an endangered person.

Only a Gendarme can shoot someone fleeing after verbal warrning 'Stop! or I shoot!' verbal warnings are not compulsory if a vehicle do not respect a roadblock.

Police can shoot a vehicle only if ran by the vehicle.

These differences are due to the military status of Gendarmerie.

In real, expect them to go through difficult times and lot of reports to type, lot of explanation.

and for a citizen using a firearm, he is better to have non contradicting witnesses that he had no other choice.

Carrying is denied as well as handgun detention for defense despite it is written in the law that one may obtain such right.

In the countryside,a side by side shotgun is the most common firearm kept at home, it is totally unregulated but ammo can not be sold to persons who do not have a hunting permit or a sport shooter licence..

Yes! That's Frogland once described as "France! Terre des armes, des arts et des lois!"

Warning shot is when you miss with the first shot. Why give the perp a chance to send me to the unhappy hunting ground.

If he's hearing impared like me do I have to use ASL?

our police department has a strict policy: if an officer removes his service weapon from its holder and does not shoot the perp, he gets a 30-day unpaid vacation. IMHO, the warning shot goes center mass. I watched a guy in a bar pull a snubbie on a friend of mine, and kept threatening him. In about 30 seconds Dickie took it away from the ass and shot him with it. He walked away from the grand jury with a no true bill. The dork is still dead, last I heard.

Rich
DRSS

In Florida a warning shot is always considered
"use of deadly force."

quote:

http://blog.robballen.com/2008...n-warning-shots.post

A warning on warning shots
Firearm Safety
John Gutmacher explains

Got an email today, and I thought I'd better give you a quick warning about warning shots -- just in case you haven't already read my book, and don't know. A warning shot is always the "use of deadly force" in Florida, and therefore unless you can lawfully use deadly force at the time the warning shot is fired -- you could be arrested and charged with a felony (normally aggravated assault) that carries a twenty (20) year mandatory minimum sentence vs. the three (3) year mandatory that would normally be the penalty if the firearm was not discharged. In essence -- if you decide to fire a warning shot -- you must have had the option to legally shoot the assailant -- but opted on a less drastic measure. Sometimes a very tough choice -- but if you don't know how serious the repercussions of a warning shot can be -- you could get in one heap of trouble!

Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq. Author: "Florida Firearms -- Law, Use & Ownership"

quote:

Originally posted by drewhenrytnt:
Then I shoot for the throat or the foot.

Maybe I should be carrying KTWs except I don't want to injure or kill innocent bystanders.

Maybe you should just get on the cell phone and call 911 ???

Maybe you should find a WiFi connection, get on the lappie and ask a forum for advice ???

There's a reason agencies train to shoot center of mass. When you're stressed your fine muscle control goes to hell on you.

Center of mass is something you might be able to actually hit.