Warning Shots..Good or Bad idea?

Investigator: "Were you aware that ROE required you to fire a warning shot?"

Shooter: "Yes, sir."

Investigator: "But your first shot hit him square in the chest."

Shooter: "I missed."

:D
 
Shooter: "go ahead and write me up sir, but just think of how much more paperwork you would have to do if HE had shot ME in the chest."
 
our roe in iraq stayed we had to initiate a warning shot at vehicles coming within 150m of our peremiter, after 100m it was shoot to kill.

i fired 6 warning shots, 4 with a .50bmg and 2 with 5.56 into the vehicles grille.

nukecop, are you using a M9? its a horribly inacurate pistol(especialy with fixed sites) you could use that in your defence.
Click to expand...

This isnt a military operation and we are not talking about exclusion zones.

And regarding your statement about the M9, they are definitely not "horribly inaccurate".
 
The M9 will do its job if you do yours. Recent shooting on an Air Force base in ND. Armed rampage by goblin ended when USAF SF cop fired ONE 9mm round at the suspect at over 60 (i think it was, may have been longer) yards away and killed the goblin. He got a airmans medal as I recall.
 
Any semi auto can jam.

ANY semi auto.

I prefer my first necessary to fire shot be in the threat.

Then at least I can have time to swipe the jam away or rack the slide if necessary.

As others have said,for example in a convienance store or a restaurant,with a crazy person threatening you with a knife or a gun or simply through their out of control actions,warning shots can easily bounce off floors or walls and kill innocent people.

You will have to justify every shot you take.

I prefer every shot I take to be exactly into the chest/head area of the deadly threat.

Along with the verbal warnings -if I have time- to say to them of "STOP NOW,DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU."
 
Last edited:
This has to be entirely case by case. I was out hunting once, about 400 yds. from my car when a carload of people pulled up next to it (in the middle of nowhere). They soon started trying to force entry into my car. A short distance from the cars was a toppled water tank. I fired a warning shot at that, and it rang like a big bell. In that unique situation, I was carrying a .223 varmint rig, and I probably would NOT have shot to hurt anyone, even if they didn't stop. No, my next shot would have been at their car. The one shot was all it took though. No-one hurt, or even endangered, as I prefer to keep it.
 
There should be no shooting to wound. If the situation is bad enough for you to pull the trigger then you should be shooting center mass until the threat has stopped. (Failure Drill exceptions noted)

As for ROE, having been in the military for numerous years and deploying several times, I understand the requirement, I just don't agree with it. Overseas in an armpit of the world, maybe a warning shot (situationally dependant) is appropriate. In the U.S., no damn way.
 
In defense of others or SD, no warning shot. In a case like REGULAR JOE's, yes.

I did not read every line on this thread, so if anyone else covered it sorry. I would fear the potential effects of blindness from muzzle flash at night or temporary loss of hearing from a warning shot. In a gunfight you need to have all your senses at 100%. If you fire a warning shot, compromise your senses and need to then engage your primary target, or worse yet, a secondary (previously unknown) target, you are now at a loss.

Thinking responsibly, where did that warning shot go? Was it in a safe direction?
 
warning shot?

Warning Shot? I think not, shoot to kill, center body mass empty your weapon or shoot until your target is dead or down and not moving
 
as just a plane ole Citizen.. I dont believe in warning shots. I could spend that time trying to get away from the problem. I would only pull a weapon if I was going to use it as a weapon.
 
Bad choice of words

WHA!!!! Eaglesnester wash your mouth out with soap!!!!!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER say that you shoot to kill! It's things like that- that will cause all your belongings to be awarded to the low-life's next of kin!
ALWAY say that you shoot to "stop the threat", and then "I stopped once the threat was gone". All Cops are drilled on this point.
Sure, we might kill the low-life in the process of "stopping the threat" but-and this is the important part- you didn't intend to kill him!
 
Personal opinion. I think warning shots are a wonderful idea. If I ever have to fire my pistol in defense of my life, I plan to give three: two to the chest and one to the head! Mozambique! I meant, er...halt or I'll shoot. If I draw it will be for good reason, and I would give one verbal "Hey, stop (three consecutive expletives followed by the activity of the BG) or I will end your worthless life!"

My two cents.
 
I would give one verbal "Hey, stop (three consecutive expletives followed by the activity of the BG) or I will end your worthless life!"
Click to expand...

That's something you may not want to provide to the prosecutor for possible use against you... "Stop or I'll shoot" might be better.

Lay opinion.
 
They get to know that you have a firearm when the bullets are coming out of the muzzle and in their direction. If you don't have justification to shoot -- to use lethal force in self defense -- then you have no legal justification to draw your gun, threaten to draw your gun, "index" your gun, pull back your jacket, etc.

In this state all that sort of behavior is statutorily "brandishing."
 
Last edited:
If you don't have justification to shoot -- to use lethal force in self defense -- then you have no legal justification to draw your gun, threaten to draw your gun, "index" your gun, pull back your jacket, etc.
Click to expand...
That depends.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.04.00

THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.​
Basically in TX you can threaten deadly force when force is justified even if the actual use of deadly force is not justified.

For reference, 'deadly force' (which is NOT the same thing as 'force') is carefully defined earlier in this section of the penal code.

Personally I think warning shots are a very bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top