Warning Shots..Good or Bad idea?
- Thread starter NukeCop
- Start date
freakintoguns
New member
my warnign shot: .45 hollowpoint to the chest. that doesnt work? hollowpoint to the brain. god forbid i ever have to sdo that , but if i have to i will. if im at home then its 12 gauge deer slugs
computerguysd
New member
I just finished reading the North Dakota code, section 62.1 & I don't see anything pertaining to firing a warning shot. The section I read was updated in 2007.
Huntergirl
New member
NO No NO. Once its drawn and the threat continues, 2 to the chest 1 to the head. Stop the threat.
Scattergun Bob
New member
Remember folks that the OP is stating he is operating under rules of engagement in a foreign land.
Revisiting Dave's post, THE GOOD news is that the OP is allowed a LOADED weapon, many times in many places guard duty is stood with a unloaded weapon.
Warning shots are or aren't the plan of the day depending on the commanding officer. Violate the plan and suffer the Uniform Code of Military Toughness!!!! This isn't Kansas, Dorothy.
Stay safe and keep a low profile
Revisiting Dave's post, THE GOOD news is that the OP is allowed a LOADED weapon, many times in many places guard duty is stood with a unloaded weapon.
Warning shots are or aren't the plan of the day depending on the commanding officer. Violate the plan and suffer the Uniform Code of Military Toughness!!!! This isn't Kansas, Dorothy.
Stay safe and keep a low profile
nra_guns_winner
Moderator
Warning shot? Well I say if someone is in my house other than me, and I felt a threat from them due to the current activity in my home I'd get a visual and drop him. If I was in line at the grocery store during a hold up, I'd give the robber my attention but not unload on him until the situation became real serious. Warning shots are just not a good idea. My warning shot would probably be a gut shot instead of a head shot.
OldMarksman
Staff
From NukeCop:
First, as has been discussed, the answer is likely to be very different for a U. S serviceman on a CONUS or foreign base than for a person in a personal defense situation within or outside of the home.
Second, it is very likely that only some CCW holders are really qualified to offer a really meaningful opinion: primarily, those who are attorneys, and even then, probably only for their states or municipal areas.
As previously stated there's probably no single answer.
But: two themes in the replies so far seem rather persuasive to me:
In my CCW class, we were advised very strongly to never fire a warning shot--"you either have to use deadly force or you do not." I would suspect that where I live firing a warning shot would constitute the illegal discharge of a firearm, but I'm not sure about that.
There was a case in New Mexico some years ago where a person intended to fire a warning shot and hit an assailant. The prosecution claimed that because the hit was not intentional, she was not entitled to a self defense claim, and she was convicted of negligent homicide. The case was, as I understand it, overturned on appeal, and the defendant was granted a new trial. I do not know the ouctome.
In my lay opinion it may be more risky to fire a warning shot than to wait until deadly force cannot reasonably be avoided and to apply it accordingly.
However, that is worth just what you paid for it.
Would any of the qualified attorneys on the forum care to contribute?
First, as has been discussed, the answer is likely to be very different for a U. S serviceman on a CONUS or foreign base than for a person in a personal defense situation within or outside of the home.
Second, it is very likely that only some CCW holders are really qualified to offer a really meaningful opinion: primarily, those who are attorneys, and even then, probably only for their states or municipal areas.
As previously stated there's probably no single answer.
But: two themes in the replies so far seem rather persuasive to me:
- There is great potential liability inherent in the obvious risk of hitting someone. Massad Ayoob provides some real examples in a couple of his books.
- The shot or shots deplete your resources.
In my CCW class, we were advised very strongly to never fire a warning shot--"you either have to use deadly force or you do not." I would suspect that where I live firing a warning shot would constitute the illegal discharge of a firearm, but I'm not sure about that.
There was a case in New Mexico some years ago where a person intended to fire a warning shot and hit an assailant. The prosecution claimed that because the hit was not intentional, she was not entitled to a self defense claim, and she was convicted of negligent homicide. The case was, as I understand it, overturned on appeal, and the defendant was granted a new trial. I do not know the ouctome.
In my lay opinion it may be more risky to fire a warning shot than to wait until deadly force cannot reasonably be avoided and to apply it accordingly.
However, that is worth just what you paid for it.
Would any of the qualified attorneys on the forum care to contribute?
2008-08-29, 11:34 AM #37
NukeCop wrote:
[QUOTErules applicable to rioters, guard duty situations where sabotage may be a problem, kids throwing rocks, protests? Out with it, my man!
Well, I'm an Air Force cop... Unless we're being shot at, we HAVE to use 2 warning shots. Protests, and rioters have been dealt with twice since I've been here. They (the TuAF) have us retreat, then handle it the best they can. Never have had hostilities that required a shoot scenario here, so we haven't had to put the rule to the test.
A lot of us know its a terrible idea to fire warning shots, but we will be held accountable by host nation courts for failure to comply...
][/QUOTE]
A lot of time has passed and you are under host country rules when on host country territory. When I was in the AF in the late 1960's I was on the 'Riot Control Unit'. After Kent State (students shot by guardsmen that had loaded weapons), the AF took ammunition away from the front line troops. We marched ('T-berry shuffle') in close line formation with fixed bayonets. A few guys with magazines were behind the front line and were designated 'Snipers'. These were the only guys with ammunition. If a real full blown riot developed, I think the situation would have sucked as bad as your orders to fire warning shots.
Odd that the AF would now issue ammunition to riot control troops. Are you in a designated war zone ?
NukeCop wrote:
[QUOTErules applicable to rioters, guard duty situations where sabotage may be a problem, kids throwing rocks, protests? Out with it, my man!
Well, I'm an Air Force cop... Unless we're being shot at, we HAVE to use 2 warning shots. Protests, and rioters have been dealt with twice since I've been here. They (the TuAF) have us retreat, then handle it the best they can. Never have had hostilities that required a shoot scenario here, so we haven't had to put the rule to the test.
A lot of us know its a terrible idea to fire warning shots, but we will be held accountable by host nation courts for failure to comply...
][/QUOTE]
A lot of time has passed and you are under host country rules when on host country territory. When I was in the AF in the late 1960's I was on the 'Riot Control Unit'. After Kent State (students shot by guardsmen that had loaded weapons), the AF took ammunition away from the front line troops. We marched ('T-berry shuffle') in close line formation with fixed bayonets. A few guys with magazines were behind the front line and were designated 'Snipers'. These were the only guys with ammunition. If a real full blown riot developed, I think the situation would have sucked as bad as your orders to fire warning shots.
Odd that the AF would now issue ammunition to riot control troops. Are you in a designated war zone ?
What about shooting one of those shotgun shells designed to be a noisemaker?
Lets say you are in your house and hear activity downstairs. Instead of going to clear the house, why not fire a round into the air while in your bedroom with a set of earplugs on?
I know this would give away your position, but if I was a burglar and heard a shotgun go off then I would head for the door without question.
Lets say you are in your house and hear activity downstairs. Instead of going to clear the house, why not fire a round into the air while in your bedroom with a set of earplugs on?
I know this would give away your position, but if I was a burglar and heard a shotgun go off then I would head for the door without question.
NukeCop said:
In this century, I have never seen anyplace that authorizes warning shots, or any century for that matter. Too many stories out there where people fire rounds into the sky and they kill or injure bystanders miles away. Your place of business is just waiting for a lawsuit.
You could always load one or two blanks, then always fire one or two warning shots - that would be absolutely acceptable.
Then why not just carry a cap gun?
.NukeCop said:
This one is almost correct... Should read always shoot to stop the action that caused you to use deadly force... Then your training records should indicate you were trained to aim center mass on any target, whether it be paper on the range or a person in the field. Center mass gives you the greatest possibility of hitting your target and not hitting any bystanders.
I always aim center mass...
OldMarksman
Staff
Or might you assume that the resident had just shot himself accidentally?
One question for all those who advocate warning shots:
From Wikipedia: "On the ground, a warning shot from a pistol, rifle, or shotgun is fired into the air, or occasionally into a nearby object, or aimed so that the shot passes the one being warned harmlessly. This is a sufficiently aggressive act to demand attention, and alert onlookers that they might be shot if directions are not followed."
Who is responsible for the round (warning shot) when it kills or seriously injures another completely oblivious person?
Answer: Whoever pulled the trigger (you).
Are you willing to except that responsibility to scare someone? If it warrants shooting a gun, shoot the threat. If it doesn't, hit the panic alarm on your car/home/etc., blow a whistle, scream, etc.
Or if you are dealing with someone in the military or law enforcement - just yell "Cease Fire."
From Wikipedia: "On the ground, a warning shot from a pistol, rifle, or shotgun is fired into the air, or occasionally into a nearby object, or aimed so that the shot passes the one being warned harmlessly. This is a sufficiently aggressive act to demand attention, and alert onlookers that they might be shot if directions are not followed."
Who is responsible for the round (warning shot) when it kills or seriously injures another completely oblivious person?
Answer: Whoever pulled the trigger (you).
Are you willing to except that responsibility to scare someone? If it warrants shooting a gun, shoot the threat. If it doesn't, hit the panic alarm on your car/home/etc., blow a whistle, scream, etc.
Or if you are dealing with someone in the military or law enforcement - just yell "Cease Fire."