A Slant on the Castle Doctrine?

Another aspect of the warning shot, is that it gives the perpatrators / attackers extra time for their minds to assess the situation. This is a bad thing when you're being attacked, you're handing them a mental advantage, and especially so when there are multiple attackers.

Also, there are times when you may think you are dealing with a single attacker when you're actually dealing with multiple attackers.
 
There are instances where not only have warning shots failed, but actual shots into a perpatrator failed to stop a second unseen or un-noticed assailant from shooting the targeted victim.

Even if there were statistics on this what statistic would be deemed acceptable?

If warning shots succesfully "scared off" attackers 75% of the time? Ninety percent of the time? Ninety five percent of the time? If I knew there was a 10% chance of taking a bullet by warning I wouldn't but if it's only 5% I will?
 
I don't really think a warning shot indicates an unwillingness to kill in every situation. I will if I feel I have to, but too many scenarios to run through to say definitively a warning shot indicates such a feeling.
 
Military organizations use warning shots, 'shots across the bow of the vessel' and the like...

They don't really have a place in SD/HD in my opinion. If you are justified to use lethal force, use it and be effective with it.

If you're not justified in using lethal force, why is a gun even in the equation?

Warning shots are a waste of ammunition in a lethal scenario at best, and a liability and dangerous practice with serious moral and legal repercussions at worst.
 
The point is that warning shots are a calculated risk. Sometimes they work...sometimes they dont. The person who is holding the gun has to decide if the risk is worth it. I am betting that warning shots aren't likely to turn up snake eyes.
 
The point is that warning shots are a calculated risk. Sometimes they work...sometimes they dont. The person who is holding the gun has to decide if the risk is worth it. I am betting that warning shots aren't likely to turn up snake eyes.
Click to expand...
Then why would you even want to take the risk.
 
Quote:
And are warning shots ever a good idea?
I asked a cop about that once.
He said the warning shot is a warning another one is on it's way.

Sounds like a decent enough answer to me
Click to expand...

A great many cops are ignorant of key points of law. This is one of them.

Firing a gun is using lethal force. Firing a warning shot is using lethal force when you do not believe lethal force is warranted.

The example of the three 13 year old knife wielding girls is a good one. "Fire a round into the asphalt." Of course that round will magically stop there... When it does not and hits something YOU are liable. That could be a car in that lot, one of the aggressors or anyone else. You chose to use lethal force when you admittedly did not believe it justified. Even if it hits the knife weilding kid you are guilty of the unjustified use of lethal force because you didn't believe it was justified.

The only time I can see a warning shot in a normal, non-military scenario is with wild animals. This is particularly true with something you doubt your weapon's ability to stop or a pack (which would be better suited by killing the closest one). Humans know what guns do. Demonstrations are not needed and only add greater danger.

For the cop who supposedly advocated a warning shot; ask him how he would file the paperwork for such a shot in 21st century America?
 
Then why would you even want to take the risk.
Click to expand...

Because, warranted under the best of circumstances, killing another human being is one of the worst things you will have to live with. IMO, it is an level above presenting a firearm and below shooting to kill. Again, not saying I would fire one or wouldn't, but given the right circumstances, I could see someone doing so. Admittedly, at this point, I can't give an example but that may be because outside of the military, I have not come across a situation where I felt it was needed.
 
Warning shots are a bad idea

I'll add another vote against warning shots.

For all the reasons already presented.

  • Possibility of injuring a bystander, perhaps even one you don't see
  • Legal ramifications of using what will be considered deadly force
  • Demonstrating an unwillingness to actually shoot
  • Plain 'ol wasting ammo :)

I'm sure there are a few more good reasons not to fire warning shots. Those are enough for me not to fire them.

Also, I don't think anyone will be able to find a reputable firearms self defense trainer/expert who recommends warning shots.
 
The other problem with warning shots is that as far as I'm aware, no schools have any training wrapped around it.

There are so many variables and so many downsides to it, I think it would be almost impossible to train for it.

For instance - suppose you're on the second floor of an apartment... where is a safe place to fire off that warning shot?

Attackers are 6 to 8 feet from you, you point your gun down at the ground... are you going to be able to get that weapon back up on target before the attacker leaps and grapples you?

This brings up an another issue - the issue of no time to think (theres a thread here somewhere called No Time to Think...), the whole complex decision making process that gets introduced with warning shot / no warning shot, just seems in itself deliterious to succesfully defending yourself. And who provides usefull training on it if there are any agreed upon effective priciples ?
 
I don't really think a warning shot indicates an unwillingness to kill in every situation. I will if I feel I have to, but too many scenarios to run through to say definitively a warning shot indicates such a feeling.
Click to expand...

From the perspective of a bad guy, if the good guy fires a warning shot, what do you think that means?

Firing a warning shot certainly does not indicate a willingness to shoot another person, otherwise the person would have been shot.
 
From the perspective of a bad guy, if the good guy fires a warning shot, what do you think that means?
Click to expand...
"Wow, that guy's a really bad shot! Look how much he missed me by! Oh, and now he's hesitating. Now's my chance. Imma steal all his Chia pets!"
 
Firing a warning shot certainly does not indicate a willingness to shoot another person, otherwise the person would have been shot.
Click to expand...

I disagree. To me it most definitely indicates a willingness to shot someone, but a warning shot also indicates that I am offering a discreet and fleeting but final "out" to the offender. A warning shot can certainly have more impact than the spoken word.
 
Friend of mine (and older than me by about 10 years) learned somewhere that the targeting sequence for self-defense shooting in California (long ago) went-

chest
chest
eye socket
eye socket
warning shot (ceiling)


In that sequence you can truthfully say you DID fire a warning shot....
 
And for the guys who love a 5 shot J-frame as their sole weapon, a warning shot means a 20% reduction in ammo capacity...
 
Total agreement with Skadoosh. I can't think of a person who would charge another after being given a warning shot. Again, not saying I would in any situation. Besides, if a warning shot was issued, it is highly unlikely that shot was given 180 degrees from the object, giving the recipient any more appreciable time than had he not been given the warning. I would see one given as an escalation of force.
 
Warning shots might have their place, but bear in mind, that round is going somewhere, and you are responsible for it.

Also bear in mind, that in some jurisdictions, there is no allowance made for a warning shot. You have just used deadly force, in those places, and legally are no better off than if you had shot the person - in which case, use of deadly force had better have been justified, or you are in the hurt locker.

As always, know your local laws.

Edit: As I thought about it, I suddenly remembered the guy a couple weeks back in Atlanta... You may recall the thread and related news reports. Guy caught a probable burglar trying to steal a lawn mower from his home-based repair shop; confronted him with an M1A, but was naked (jumped out of bed, I guess...)

Guy made up a story; homeowner told him to leave. Guy kept on with story, and according to homeowner seemed like he would still try to take lawnmower. Homeowner fires warning shot. Guy does not take it seriously enough. Homeowner ends up firing warning shots 2, 3, and 4, from his balcony, with his M1A.

Police officers are in neighborhood, with a camera crew, shooting some reality police program. They come running when they hear the shots. Homeowner is seen on balcony with rifle. Challenge to drop weapon and first shots by cops are reportedly (on audio recording that I have not heard) right on top of each other. Homeowner loses a kidney, gets arrested, is eventually released without charges, only to find his property stolen and shop burnt down.

Two morals here: 1) Warning shots don't always work, even when fired by a naked dude with an M1A; 2) Police may respond unfavorably to man with gun, when they respond to shots fired; consider how you might mitigate their reaction.
 
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy said:
From the perspective of a bad guy, if the good guy fires a warning shot, what do you think that means?

Firing a warning shot certainly does not indicate a willingness to shoot another person, otherwise the person would have been shot.
Click to expand...

I think there are as many interpretations for what a warning shot might mean as there are people and scenarios to put them in.

I do think it's an unpredictable variable that is probably not worth the risk MOST of the time. However, Uncle Bucks scenario is one example where a warning shot seems like a good response.

I really think "the message" could be anywhere from "He ain't got the nads" to "Holy crap! This guy is serious!".
 
In this particular case, the police, and I assume the procecutor seem to approve of the homeowner's actions.

But the interpretation of warning shots inhabit a legal limbo, and they come with a catch-22. There have been cases where people have fired warning shots and subsequently been charged with unlawful/improper discharge of a firearm or similar.

In October, of 2010 retired police Lt. Harry Thomas fired what he said was a warning shot at a dog that was attacking him. Lt. Thomas was charged with firing a gun in the city limits. He was told that because, by his own admission, he had not fired at the dog, he obviously was not in any danger and not acting in self-defense.

Besides all of the other reasons that warning shots are a bad idea - they can put you in a legal trick-bag with the wrong prosecutor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top