Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:01 am
I always just shoot the weapon out of the bad-guy's hand.
I'm not sure how anyone would know for certain if there was a warning shot or just a bad miss.
Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:45 pm
This is what happens when you let the media and the anti-gun/anti-cop crowd (and it is the same thing) be treated as if they actually have a valid point. “Why don’t they fire warning shots? Why don’t they shoot to wound? Why did they have to kill (insert name of repeat felon here)?”
Let’s examine the 3 “strict conditions” for warning shots listed in the article.
1. The use of deadly force is justified.
That means that you have a reasonable belief that you or another innocent person is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. Sorry. If I am in such immediate danger, I do NOT want to “warn” anyone. I want to STOP them. PERIOD. I am going to make sure that whatever actions they are pursuing that justifies my use of deadly force are going to stop. A warning shot will not do that.
2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others.
In the split second that I have to make the shoot/no-shoot decision, I’m also supposed to calculate the trajectory of the round I will fire as a “warning shot?” In any urban environment you are going to be putting a lot of people in danger in order to “warn” the bad guy and convince him to stop his criminal acts. I foresee many huge lawsuits from the families of people hit by “warning shots.”
3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.
Again, I’m supposed to determine this in the fraction of a second that I have before either I or someone else is killed? And this is absolute nonsense to begin with. Firing a shot IS deadly force, whether it is a warning shot or is intended to stop the threat.
The IACP is, as the name implies, composed of “Chiefs of Police.” In other words, politicians and bureaucrats who are NOT, by and large, experienced law enforcement officers. There are exceptions (Sheriff Clarke in Milwaukee and Sheriff Schmaling in Racine come to mind immediately) but most “Chiefs of Police” are political appointees, not cops. Their firearms and deadly force policies reflect that.
I will NEVER fire a “warning shot” and I will never “shoot to wound.” If I am justified in firing at all, I will shoot to STOP. You do what you want. See you in court.
Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:16 am
Bad idea. Either you have to shoot or you don't.
Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:30 pm
Tomahawk wrote:Bad idea. Either you have to shoot or you don't.
Agreed! I can't think of a single situation where a warning shot would do any good. and I can think of lots reasons why a warning shot could propose a danger either to the person firing the shot or to others in the area. Just not a good idea.
Tue May 30, 2017 8:20 am
Your posting is very useful.