Warning Shots??? Shooting to Wound???

Some recent incidents should make us aware that in this "age of the twitter" nothing goes unrecorded and nothing ever goes away. That is both good and bad, and there is the corollary that anything recorded can be edited to prove anything the editor wants. You didn't shoot Abe Lincoln? Give some photo experts a few cell phone pictures of your last range session, and I they will have you convinced that you shot old Abe in 1865 with your trusty .44 Magnum.

Jim
 
It seems kind of stupid, but "smart" people aren't the ones the cops are holding at gunpoint, now are they??
Click to expand...

OK, that gave me a grin in the middle of a serious subject. Good points in your post. But you aren't in favor of warning shots, are you?
 
the only answer I can come up with is defunding NPR.
a useless waste of my tax dollar.

even where I live, in AZ in a desert full of sand where it would be fine to shoot into a berm of dirt - warning shots are just something stupid people do
 
I won't even get into the warning shot cr@p.....................absolutly dumb idea!

But What officer has the training and talent (while under stress), to even shoot to wound a bad guy. Hard enough to get a decent shot just to stop a BG, let alone to just wound him?? Really dumb ideas............both!:rolleyes:
 
But you aren't in favor of warning shots, are you?
Click to expand...

The only way I would fire a warning shot would be if I missed. :D:rolleyes:

Which, of course, is entirely possible, but it would not be my intention.
 
Deaf Smith wrote: I find shooting for the heart acts both as a 'warning' and as a 'wound'.
Click to expand...

"Stop or the next one is going in your head". Thud

The warning shot proposal seems rarely usable and ill-advised even then. Can we find room on a duty belt for a blank firing pistol? Good thing a lot of our cops are ex-military because they are humping a ridiculous load around.
 
Pretending that a warning shot will make things any better for police officers faced with a deadly situation is sinful. Shooting someone is already fraught with trouble for officers, firing warning shots or shooting to wound is going to ensure that every police shooting will be dissected to the atomic level. Changing the policies to address when to warn or wound will make every officer struggle with the decision, and that time wasted will not be helpful. An assailant with drawn gun might take advantage of a warning shot.

For npr to address this as a potential means of ending the riots and hate is ludicrous. All it will do is make both decision and review even more difficult, and increase the confusion among the public about right and wrong. Even if the officer is facing an active shooter and imminent death, drawing and firing his firearm will still be an acceptable reason to lie and agitate.
 
The constant bombardment of the public by stupid movies that portray long standoffs just make the world a stupider and more dangerous place.

We always want the bad guy to draw first or fire the first round, it shows that the cop is a hero, and removes all ambiguity.

Did you know that people actually believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, alien, Bigfoot, and that the earth is flat? Some people also believe that when and why a cop fires a shot is everyone's business, and that no matter how stupid, uninformed, biased an individual is, that individual's beliefs are even more important than factual assessment.
 
The constant bombardment of the public by stupid movies.... just make the world a stupider and more dangerous place.
Click to expand...

Well, the people who watch and believe its real/the right thing to do, certainly do make the world a stupider place.

REQUIRING cops to fire a "warning shot"? Considering the number of reports I have seen about cops (particularly big city cops) firing a couple dozen or more shots and only getting a few hits (often only wounding hits) the idea of requiring a warning shot seems kind of superfluous.

Also, pretty soon, the word will get around, and every bad guy will "know" they cops are required to miss, on their first shot. Might that change their behavior, somewhat?

Also, are you going to require every cop to do this? If there's two cops are two warning shots required?? (one from each???)

Here's a thought. mount a bullet trap to each police vehicle. That way, as each officer exits the vehicle, he can fire a "warning shot" into the bullet trap, providing the required "warning", without endangering the public, and also function testing their firearm....

OR...

why not just require the police to toss a flash bang stun grenade out of their cruiser window when they arrive at a crime scene??? That way, everyone will know the cops are there, and are armed...because, after all, lights and sirens just aren't enough anymore, ....are they??

Firing a shot across the bow of a ship to show you are serious is a long standing naval tradition. But what works for ships at sea isn't the right thing for thugs on the street, or worse, in your home...
 
firing warning shots is a very good way to harm bystanders and other innocent people. Its a stuipid idea.

If you don't need to use deadly force, don't! its as simply as that. A firearm is not a fog horn or something to be used as an exclamation point.
 
The average response time of a local police department is in the neighborhood of 6 minutes. The average time frame that a violent act takes place in which a self defense response may be required is a matter of seconds. Have you really got time to consider a 'warning shot?' Silly.

I realize the OP was citing a law enforcement officers' response. However, I think of me in the scenario as a private citizen, it's still silly. Plus, considering the source of the article makes the discussion even more disturbing since they only deal in the world of perfect circumstances and fantasy outcomes. (OK, I am jaded, but still....)
 
Loosedhorse said:
NPR ran a story a couple of days ago. In the aftermath of well-publicized "police shootings of unarmed suspects", apparently several items are now being re-evaluated as possibly re-entering police "use of force" policies:
  • Warning shots
  • Shooting to wound
Special treat: one of the commenters that NPR chose was Massad Ayoob. Very unusual for NPR to have a real gun and self-defense expert commenting, in my opinion.



Story: Police warning shots may be in for a comeback





  1. What do you think of changing the police policy?
  2. If the policy does change, does that mean that private citizens should also adopt these deadly-force options for lawful self-defense by private citizens?
  3. If police policy changes, and private citizens do no follow suit, do they then become vulnerable to the charge, "You didn't have to shoot to kill: you could have fired a warning shot, or shot to wound"?



My take, FWIW: I understand, especially in the wake of what might seem to be "too many" shootings by police, deciding to review police use-of-force policies. I even understand starting the review process with "all options on the table for discussion." Having said that, I think that "shooting to wound" is a VERY bad idea for all the reasons usually discussed. I also think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is another bad idea.
Click to expand...



Bad idea? Depends. I've always been of the opinion that we need a zero tolerance of "zero tolerance policies." In this case it kind of applies...can someone say with 100% certainty that there is NEVER a time or place where a warning shot or shooting to wound could not apply?


I don't expect to be doing something like that, but if a drunk man is trying to assault someone?


If That person "missed" and shot him in the hip rendering him unable to walk? Would you blame him? I think you touched the most important part of the question: will we be held to the standard and judged by what we "could have done" instead of what we did? And that is the point of stand your ground imo. The problem with the idea of both concepts is well documented here, but suffice it to say...back drop and escalating the situation.

Personally? I think it is the duty of every concealed carrier to de escalate the situation if they find themselves in it, and understand how to get out of the situation without the gun first. But I'm a martial artist before a concealed carrier. So that is easier said from my end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
can someone say with 100% certainty that there is NEVER a time or place where a warning shot or shooting to wound could not apply?
Click to expand...
No.

However, I DID say (as you quoted) think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is a bad idea. In other words, having a policy that covers 99.999% of cases is not a bad idea. For that last 0.001%, sure, the person who violates the policy can argue that it was the right thing to do in that particular case, and why.

Being against "zero tolerance policies" does not mean being against policies that prohibit certain actions; it does mean that you want each alleged violation of policy is looked at individually, including looking at the presence of any unusual circumstances. In a "zero-tolerance policy", all violations are treated the same, regardless of circumstances.

So: a marksman with great conditions and a still target, who "shoots to wound"--or even better, shoots the gun out of the suspect's hand, just like on TV!--thus saving the suspect's life? Fine by me. She or he can explain the reasons for the policy violation (or the senior officer who authorized the shot can explain why he or she violated policy). Doesn't mean that a policy against such shots is a bad idea.

"Shooting to wound"--if it RESULTS in a stopped, not-mortally-wounded suspect--is not bad at all; I'd be happy to authorize that result!
:)

The problem is that the "technique" of "shooting to wound" does not guarantee that result. Shots fired away from the usual "center mass" target area are LESS likely to stop the attacker quickly; and stopping the attacker is the goal. If the attacker is not stopped quickly because you "shot to wound", now what? If you keep shooting, your probability of getting the result you wanted is decreasing with every shot.

Add to that that shots that shots aimed at legs and arms can hit "more vital" areas (by bad aim in an emergency, or if the suspect moves); and even hits on arms and legs can produce rapidly fatal injury, while STILL not stopping the threat: he's already dead, but he hasn't stopped fighting yet; the public and the police remain at risk as long as he's active.

And of course limbs move more quickly than does the chest, so your likelihood of missing is higher when you target the limbs--thus endangering innocents downrange.

All that sounds like good rationale for a policy to me. JMO, explaining MO stated earlier.
 
Loosedhorse said:
No.



However, I DID say (as you quoted) think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is a bad idea. In other words, having a policy that covers 99.999% of cases is not a bad idea. For that last 0.001%, sure, the person who violates the policy can argue that it was the right thing to do in that particular case, and why.



Being against "zero tolerance policies" does not mean being against policies that prohibit certain actions; it does mean that you want each alleged violation of policy is looked at individually, including looking at the presence of any unusual circumstances. In a "zero-tolerance policy", all violations are treated the same, regardless of circumstances.



So: a marksman with great conditions and a still target, who "shoots to wound"--or even better, shoots the gun out of the suspect's hand, just like on TV!--thus saving the suspect's life? Fine by me. She or he can explain the reasons for the policy violation (or the senior officer who authorized the shot can explain why he or she violated policy). Doesn't mean that a policy against such shots is a bad idea.



"Shooting to wound"--if it RESULTS in a stopped, not-mortally-wounded suspect--is not bad at all; I'd be happy to authorize that result!

:)



The problem is that the "technique" of "shooting to wound" does not guarantee that result. Shots fired away from the usual "center mass" target area are LESS likely to stop the attacker quickly; and stopping the attacker is the goal. If the attacker is not stopped quickly because you "shot to wound", now what? If you keep shooting, your probability of getting the result you wanted is decreasing with every shot.



Add to that that shots that shots aimed at legs and arms can hit "more vital" areas (by bad aim in an emergency, or if the suspect moves); and even hits on arms and legs can produce rapidly fatal injury, while STILL not stopping the threat: he's already dead, but he hasn't stopped fighting yet; the public and the police remain at risk as long as he's active.



And of course limbs move more quickly than does the chest, so your likelihood of missing is higher when you target the limbs--thus endangering innocents downrange.



All that sounds like good rationale for a policy to me. JMO, explaining MO stated earlier.
Click to expand...



I don't disagree. My policy won't change. I'm shooting center mass. Safer. Maybe for that .001% chance my mind might say...maybe?

But for police procedure? I think they should be allowed to save lives. And case to case basis is the best judge for that kind of situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think they should be allowed to save lives. And case to case basis is the best judge for that kind of situation.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I haven't said otherwise.

A policy is not a law. Yet even for laws--like say, the law that makes shooting someone aggravated assault and/or attempted murder--there are recognized exceptions in individual cases. And so we judge each shooting of a person individually, even though we have a law (or several) against it.

So, yes, I am for a policy against warning shots and shooting to wound. I am not for blindly upholding that policy in that rare case an officer violates policy in an unusual circumstance, for good reason, with good results, showing good judgment. Standard "competing harms"/"lesser evil" argument.
 
I don't much care about police shooting protocol when I have to defend myself with my gun the only warning shot will be meant to stop the bad guy. I'm still recovering from the ammo shortage :) and ammo is too scarce to waste shooting a round into the ground. I am sure the BG will fire a warning shot..:rolleyes:
I will continue to fire warning shots until the threat is eliminated or I run out of ammo. I have a lot of ammo.
 
Warning shots, by policy and law, should be limited only to situations where they will effectively help the situation, and a committee of university trained experts must decide whether a warning shot was actually an acceptable response.

We need a nationwide zero tolerance policy against warning and wounding shots.

When these policies are implemented I suggest that anyone who fires a warning shot claim that it was an accidental discharge, and any wound should be excused by claiming that it was just a poor shot that missed lethal organs.

I also suggest that anyone who has an ad should be treated kindly, so as to avoid negative self image, and a wounding deserves a big "A FOR EFFORT!" certificate.


It's a commonly held belief that a shot should not be discharged unless there is imminent risk of death, and that if a situation calls for shooting, it probably calls for Shooting for lethal effect. That might be true for almost all situations.

This question just makes my head hurt.
 
This is the kind of nonsense that occurs when ignorant people inject political goals and Hollywood fantasies into real life situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top