Warning Shots??? Shooting to Wound???
- Thread starter Loosedhorse
- Start date
Did not mean to confuse you
You misunderstood my replay as I am in complete agreement with your sentiments. My comment was directed at those who endanger LEO's lives and the lives of others. Recently there was a female LEO who had such reservations or thoughts and wound up in the hospital. I work indirectly with LEO's and they are always in my prayers. .....
Be Safe !!!
Mac,
You misunderstood my replay as I am in complete agreement with your sentiments. My comment was directed at those who endanger LEO's lives and the lives of others. Recently there was a female LEO who had such reservations or thoughts and wound up in the hospital. I work indirectly with LEO's and they are always in my prayers. .....
Be Safe !!!
Loosedhorse
Moderator
Perhaps.Snyper said:
There is no doubt that the media prints many silly stories. Having watched NPR stories for some time, I suspect it's even a bit worse than that.
The next time that we have an "unarmed suspect" shot by police, I won't be surprised if the NPR story contains a passage along the lines of, "Unfortunately, the So-and-so Police Department has refused to consider authorizing warning shots and shooting to wound, so its officers may feel they have no choice but to shoot to kill."
Let's just say their coverage of previous media-blitz police shootings has not (in my opinion) been very concerned with the practicalities of officer safety or the concepts of armed self-defense. It has, in fact, felt quite agenda-driven to me.
My apologies Pahoo. My response was snarkier than it should have been, especially if my meaning was unclear.
I have read a couple of opinion pieces about this subject this afternoon. There is incredible pressure on police to use non-lethal force in all but the most violent encounters. Police don't always get it right, but attack a police officer physically with or without a weapon and you have crossed the line. Police are sworn to protect and serve. They can't do that if we tie their hands.
Take care Pahoo.
I have read a couple of opinion pieces about this subject this afternoon. There is incredible pressure on police to use non-lethal force in all but the most violent encounters. Police don't always get it right, but attack a police officer physically with or without a weapon and you have crossed the line. Police are sworn to protect and serve. They can't do that if we tie their hands.
Take care Pahoo.
1. Absolutely HORRIBLE police policy!
2. Absolutely HORRIBLE self-defense policy!
Bullets are much faster than rational thoughts regardless of the situation. This, of course, includes bullets from the criminal's firearm. Shooting to wound rather than center of mass is far more difficult and is much more likely to cause unintended harm in some situations, i.e., an innocent victim of the officer's shot.
2. Absolutely HORRIBLE self-defense policy!
Bullets are much faster than rational thoughts regardless of the situation. This, of course, includes bullets from the criminal's firearm. Shooting to wound rather than center of mass is far more difficult and is much more likely to cause unintended harm in some situations, i.e., an innocent victim of the officer's shot.
Last edited:
We need to keep and protect, our cops
Be Safe !!!
A local LEO friend, just resigned from the force. He stated that it's getting meaner out there and new policies are getting worse. Sad part is that he really liked being a cop but having a hard time, watching his back as well as in-house "stuff". ....
Be Safe !!!
Remember that the folks at NPR (and the press in general) know nothing about guns or shooting except what they see in the movies or what is written by equally ignorant "journalists." Or what is dictated to them by "editorial policy", almost always extremely anti-gun and strongly left wing, a view that makes every armed thug a hero, and the gun carrying citizen a vicious, depraved murderer.
If there was ever a time when police were on the side of the armed citizen, this is not it. You may believe that if you kill or wound in self-defense, the cops will be on your side. Sure. And people who believe that could have time, lots of time, to re-think the idea. That is, if an "officer friendly" doesn't blow you away before you get a chance to explain that you can't drop your brand new $10,000 pistol on that dirty street.
Jim
If there was ever a time when police were on the side of the armed citizen, this is not it. You may believe that if you kill or wound in self-defense, the cops will be on your side. Sure. And people who believe that could have time, lots of time, to re-think the idea. That is, if an "officer friendly" doesn't blow you away before you get a chance to explain that you can't drop your brand new $10,000 pistol on that dirty street.
Jim
Double Naught Spy
New member
If police are going to use warning shots, I would prefer that they be trained in how to do it properly than not trained.
Lots of issues here:
1) Where is the warning shot supposed to go? In Mobeetie Texas, not a big deal, not many people, animals or critical (or any) infrastructure to hit. In most suburban and urban environments, everything OTHER than the target is likely an expensive repair / lawsuit / tragedy.
2) What is the proficiency level of the shooting officer? It sounds like most eastern seaboard cops don't get enough range time to credibly, safely and precisely place a warning shot into the dirt or other inert material, all under stress.
3) When is a warning shot appropriate and what is the criteria for that warning shot vs. lethal and can they show they met that criteria? (Can the officer show he/she went through the "20 check points of department policy for a warning shot"? or whatever it is. If that's not real clear, the officer and their department are going to look pretty bad in court.
4) If the bad guy has a gun, why is the officer wasting a shot and time and overtly notifying the bad guy it's "game on".
The only positive I see here is fertile ground for lawsuits.
1) Where is the warning shot supposed to go? In Mobeetie Texas, not a big deal, not many people, animals or critical (or any) infrastructure to hit. In most suburban and urban environments, everything OTHER than the target is likely an expensive repair / lawsuit / tragedy.
2) What is the proficiency level of the shooting officer? It sounds like most eastern seaboard cops don't get enough range time to credibly, safely and precisely place a warning shot into the dirt or other inert material, all under stress.
3) When is a warning shot appropriate and what is the criteria for that warning shot vs. lethal and can they show they met that criteria? (Can the officer show he/she went through the "20 check points of department policy for a warning shot"? or whatever it is. If that's not real clear, the officer and their department are going to look pretty bad in court.
4) If the bad guy has a gun, why is the officer wasting a shot and time and overtly notifying the bad guy it's "game on".
The only positive I see here is fertile ground for lawsuits.
Loosedhorse
Moderator
From the article:
And that the 2nd Amendment's protection of private gun ownership is nothing more than a rumor started in 2008 by the "gun lobby", FOX News and a few boo-scary conservatives like Newt Gingrich and the Koch Bros.?
(Not meaning to put words in your mouth; those words are the way I might have finished your sentence--my opinion.)
Because having more choices to make both slows down the response, and gives you more possible mistakes to make. There is a lot to the KISS principle, especially in a deadly-force threat situation.
...Except they hate them both?James K said:
And that the 2nd Amendment's protection of private gun ownership is nothing more than a rumor started in 2008 by the "gun lobby", FOX News and a few boo-scary conservatives like Newt Gingrich and the Koch Bros.?
(Not meaning to put words in your mouth; those words are the way I might have finished your sentence--my opinion.)
Last edited:
Lots of good arguments here against the policy, but the first chronologically, before a trigger is pulled, is to ask, "What will a warning shot do that the sight of a badge and uniform will not?" Maybe an LEO would feel differently, but I don't see a warning shot as something that will change a BG's mind about complying. They already know that LEOs are armed. Having to prove the gun is loaded seems pretty stupid, even before you start thinking about where the bullet is going to go.
As already asked here a couple of times how does one train to do this? There will be some who will insist that warning shots and shooting to wound is possible with "proper" training. There is no proper training for this, and pretending there is puts lives at risk.
The consequences of requiring a less than than lethal response would be dire for police. For armed civilians it would make surviving a lethal encounter and then making the case that lethal force was justified all the more difficult. I think an argument could be made that these are the real goals of this nonsense.
Where exactly are they going to shoe-horn in the "warning shot" or "shooting to wound"?
Obviously its below deadly force.
Is it above or below the use of the taser? Mace? Bean bags? A "less-lethal" FN303 launcher?
Does an officer have to brandish his firearm, fire a warning shot, switch to the taser, attempt to use mace, and then shoot to wound?
Obviously its below deadly force.
Is it above or below the use of the taser? Mace? Bean bags? A "less-lethal" FN303 launcher?
Does an officer have to brandish his firearm, fire a warning shot, switch to the taser, attempt to use mace, and then shoot to wound?
It seems kind of stupid, but "smart" people aren't the ones the cops are holding at gunpoint, now are they??
Part of the issue is that criminals, don't always co-operate. And, even though a gun is pointed at them, some refuse to believe they will be shot, until, unless something ELSE convinces them.
One sees it often in today's popular fiction onscreen, where the (usually) bad guy points a gun, and orders people to do things, and they meekly obey, UNTIL he tells them to do something they refuse to do, and THEN, (and only then) does the bad guy rack the slide, or cock the hammer, in what, no doubt, directors consider dramatic fashion, to show that they are "serious".
Sound stupid? it is. But real life can be equally stupid.
Some decades ago, back when the police were still using DA revolvers, Florida began having an increase in accidental police shootings. It seems that a certain portion of the thuggery was displaying their machismo (bravdo? what ever the proper word is), by refusing to obey police commands, even at gun point, UNTIL the officer cocked his weapon, proving he was "serious". A cocked DA revolver increased the likelihood of an accidental discharge.
One major dept (Miami, if I remember right) had their revolvers converted to DA only, as a result of this.
As a citizen facing a threat, what do you do if the bad guy doesn't believe you will actually shoot? At that point, many would think a warning shot is the right thing to do, to convince your attacker that you will shoot. And, it does this, but it doesn't convince the truly determined that you will shoot THEM. It MIGHT, but there's no counting on that, and its quite possible that your will have to shoot them, DESPITE a warning shot.
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
Not a chance. If deadly force is required you shoot to stop the attacker and that means essentially shooting in areas likely to cause fatal wounds.
Where exactly are the officers expected to place these warning shots?
Where exactly are the officers expected to place these warning shots?
ShootistPRS
New member
Two mid chest and one in the head.
After firing his three warning shots the purp knows he is serious, and so do his accomplices.
OldMarksman
Staff
The proposed policy provides for warning shots only when deadly force would be justified.
The officer does not "have" to do anything. The policy would permit warning shots.
Loosedhorse
Moderator
Yes: the Metro-Dade Police in Miami did that, after the Alvarez-Johnson shooting.44 AMP said:
The shooting led to riots, then to Officer Alvarez's prosecution for manslaughter, then to his acquittal, and then to more riots protesting his acquittal. Alvarez never said he cocked his gun, but the prosecutor (some gal named Janet Reno) got the grand jury to indict by claiming that since the gun could be cocked, Alvarez must have cocked it, and then the gun, in a "hair-trigger" condition, went off by accident.
Miami converted their revolvers between the 1982 shooting and the 1984 trial. I think LAPD did the same even earlier, probably 1971, after several less publicized (alleged and/or real) incidents of suspects getting shot because officers had NDs after cocking their revolvers.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/31/us/self-defense-plea-for-miami-officer.html
http://www.royblack.com/files/Alvarez.pdf
https://americanhandgunner.com/understanding-hair-trigger-issues/
Deaf Smith
New member
I find shooting for the heart acts both as a 'warning' and as a 'wound'.
Deaf
Deaf