Not only in Al.
Has anyone seen any legal explanation of term: “warning shot”?
We have improper discharge of a firearm, aggravated assault, aggravated battery and attempted murder . And these charges may be presented to you if you do “warning shot”. 
Please see: “Marissa Alexander case”
Now that’s funny…
Perception is everything. If you pull a firearm and fire it, what prevents you from being perceived as a deadly threat worthy of airation yourself?
Big no to warning shots. As others mentioned, we are responsible for every round. A round into the air will come down somewhere. While it is unlikely to be lethal, it potentially could. I can’t see any scenario where we want to fire a random bullet. I suppose firing directly into soft ground would be more advisable than into the air, but even then I wouldn’t want to do that.
Just playing devil’s advocate here and, hypothetically, placing myself in a suburb of Portland Oregon or in Kenosha Wisconsin. And now recalling all you have seen on twitter and cable news broadcasts of burning, looting, and people getting their heads caved in as part of peaceful protests. And similar to what the McCluskey’s experienced in St. Louis, but worse…
A protest or whatever you want to call it is occurring down the block from your home. You’ve already seen local news coverage of looting and burning near your own neighborhood only 60 minutes ago. You even see smoke and flames in the distance. The “protesters” are now on your block. Clearly verbal warnings from others residents and even police action has done absolutely nothing to prevent the carnage inflicted so far.
Now they are on your property. The protesters verbally threaten to kill you and take what they want. And seriously, we all know by now that this has already happened often enough. I don’t think I am stretching things here. Is a warning shot worth taking? Is there a possibility, even a reasonable probability, that a warning shot (maybe even a couple .223s fired straight up into the air) might have the desired effect? I’m not worried about wasting ammo from one or two warning shots, I have 30 in the mag. Does the possibility of deterring further violence (and avoiding actually having to shoot AT someone) make it worth taking the warning shot? Or statistically (I don’t know), do warning shots escalate things more often than deter?
Again, just playing devil’s advocate. Or have we already all accepted that given the McCloskey results, just SHOWING a weapon (in the above scenario) is probably not allowed.
Never. For all the reasons stated above in this thread.
NO What do you think a warning shot is going to do? heck they didn’t even run from the police.
I don’t know. I have never fired one. That’s why I am asking and as I said, playing devils advocate. I’ll go back and read the other comments again. I may have missed something.
I do like that opinion. My previous reply here (about firing a warning shot) is because I am probably too reluctant to shoot anyone – thus a warning shot. I suppose we never know until we are in that situation. But I guess if I am too cautious when it really gets to that point, I risk my life.
@Kevin1776
“warning shot”?
We have improper discharge of a firearm, aggravated assault, aggravated battery and attempted murder . And these charges may be presented to you if you do “warning shot”
[/quote]
THAT’S WHY I WOULDN’T FIRE A WARNING SHOT 
And then there’s that gravity thing whereas the warning shot round fired into air has to come down somewhere. 
Not to belabor this thread and annoy more people, but just another comment or two. First, here is the USCCA video on the matter…
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/should-i-shoot-a-warning-shot/
So that much I like.
But the post that started this entire thread was about rioting and looting. It seems that most of the warning shot discussions I have seen online are about the one-on-one scenario. In that scenario I agree 100% – NO warning shots. But the use of warning shots during riots or “peaceful protests” (call them what you like) seem like a gray area. It’s frustrating that things are so often painted gray, if not even free from charges and prosecution, for the protesters/rioters. But a dude caught up in the midst of this on his own property, who fires a warning shot or does no more than show a gun (even without pointing or brandishing) will be under almost microscopic scrutiny should he find himself in court.
But as Walter Cronkite would say, “And that’s the way it is.”
@Kevin1776, warning shots are not only inadvisable, but illegal in most, if not all, states.
Yes. I am not disputing that. I am not advocating warning shots given the current law. Just friendly discussion given the current condition of things (riots and protests in the context of the original post) here in the states.
Well, obviously it is going to depend on the State or locality, but I know both in California and many of our cities the answer is yes, generally warning shots could be considered illegal.
California law: Penal Code 246.3
Case law example: People v. Alonzo, 13 Cal. App. 4th 535 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 1993
I say could be because California law says “discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death to a person”. So the person doing so would have to offer a defense that doing so was not done in a “grossly negligent manner” and that the shot could not result in “injury or death to a person”. Good luck with that.
Legal or illegal, it is still just a bad idea.
I get it. NO WARNING SHOTS.
So much for that Beretta logo… 
Even if you discount the law against it, it is not a good idea for at least all of the reasons stated against it.
As to the reference to the military symbol related to Beretta, we are not the military, do not function as such, and are controlled by laws that dictate our actions regarding “warning shots”. We also are responsible for all rounds exiting the barrels of our firearms, as such, “warning shots” are typically unsafe, as you do not and cannot know where that shot will ultimately terminate. A shot at the ground could ricochet, a shot into the air could hurt or kill an unintended target, and the only reason we are “allowed” to discharge our firearm (aka, apply lethal force) is in fear of great bodily harm or death. If you fire a “warning shot”, it could readily be argued that the sole legal reason “allowed” for discharging your firearm would not apply, since if you life was on the line, a “warning shot” does nothing to neutralize the threat/attack. If your life was not in peril, than a “warning shot” might work, and the law “allowing” your use of a firearm would not apply.
Whether legal, illegal, advisable, inadvisable…all pretty much irrelevant to me. The idea of warning shots have always seemed to be a waste of time, resources, and energy that otherwise would be more productive elsewhere.
They should be reserved for spaghetti westerns…
