Warning shots

“Firing a shot is the option of last resort when all your other planning, training, and senses have failed you”.

If you have time to fire a warning shot you’ve just given up the claim of “imminent” and “immediate” deadly harm.

That will make your case exponentially harder to win.

3 Likes

You’re preaching to the choir Charles. I already know that is a serious no-no but apparently a few are in favor because theirs a lot of respondents. Something I would never do for any reason.

2 Likes

Not preaching Robert, just playing off of your ball to cement the point.

2 Likes

@WildRose Ok got you. I understand. When I was growing up in Chicago back in the 1950’s and early and middle 1960’s our across the street neighbor was a Chicago PD detective and he got intoxicated oftentimes, well he scared the neighbors because he always fired his Chiefs Special.38 up in the air on weekends and growing up next to him wasn’t cool because you could hear bullets hit our roof often times but my father never reported it because the neighbors were all afraid of the man. 50 years ago life was different than today but my point is that you just don’t know where a bullet will land and police usually take care of each other so to report is futile and wouldn’t have done anything of value.

1 Like

No argument about that either. If someone feels they must fire a warning shot fire it into something safe you know will stop it like a big tree, the ground etc.

As a civilian defender though making the choice to fire a warning shot is generally a very poor one and is only likely to make your lawyer’s job far more difficult in trying to keep you out of jail.

1 Like

U.S. Naval encounters. This is the only time for a warning shot. One acrossed the bow and then we sink you!

6 Likes

The only time we should be presenting our firearm is when we are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. If you have the time to fire a warning shot you are not in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm - so it very well might not be considered self-defense.

If someone feels they must fire a warning shot, they need more training.

2 Likes

@George16. Very cool analogy George

1 Like

On principle I agree. Under the laws of several states however warning shots are lawful as long as they don’t endanger anyone else.

That being the case I think it’s completely proper to suggest ways to do so in the safest way possible.

Do you have a reference for that @wildrose?

1 Like

Florida would be one.

In most states anytime you fire a shot it’s considered use of deadly force but isn’t expressly illegal if deadly force is a legal option under the state’s law and circumstances.

Where you can get into trouble (other than the obvious of where the bullet comes down) is that you have to be able to articulate to the satisfaction of the police, prosecutor, and maybe jury that you still meet the criteria of “imminent deadly threat or grave bodily harm” if you choose to fire a warning shot instead of shooting the attacker/perp.

2 Likes

The bill they refer to in that story does not have the words warning shots at all:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/89/BillText/er/PDF

Would a reasonable person in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm waste time with a warning shot?

1 Like

@Zee. I read some time ago that a policeman’s wife in Illinois shot a warning shot and it went flying between her husbands legs. He did not press charges apparently and lucky for both for obvious different reasons. Warning shots still remain unlawful here in Lincoln land but the act of firing a warning shot could have very grave consequences. This happened some years ago but both husband and wife are really lucky.

1 Like

The bill specifically removes warning shots from the criteria of deadly force and allows them to be fired as an alternative to shooting the person.

Would a reasonable person fire a warning shot if they thought it would stop an attacker without killing them? Yes many would.

The object is to “stop the threat” not to kill them, and we are to use deadly force strictly as a last resort when we have no other choice.

2 Likes

After watching this thread grow and seeing the differing opinions, and with a little prompting, I took a look at Kentucky law with respect to warning shots historically and what is happening today. Keep in mind this relates directly to Kentucky and other states statutory and common law can vary greatly.
Court cases historically involving warning shots fell in to two categories. The first is police warning shots. The last of those I saw fell somewhere in the 1970s or 80s. Since then police procedure has progressed and warning shots by police are discouraged at all levels of training. More importantly, SCOTUS opined in Tennessee v. Garner, that before shooting a fleeing felon, the police must issue a warning, “stop or I’ll shoot” if it is feasible to do so. 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Other than police warning shots, the majority of cases that have ended up in the courts because the warning shot caused injury or death to the the person being warned, the person firing the warning shot or a bystander. In most of the cases, the guilty verdicts were affirmed. In some cases the cases were reversed and remanded for retrial to allow for exculpatory evidence to be presented. There is one case where a warning shot was fired by a homeowner with a struggle that followed.
The first problem with a warning shot is the possibility of the round causing injury or death to either the assailant or an otherwise innocent victim. And, while laws may provide civil and/or criminal immunity to a person acting in self defense, if anyone other than the assailant is injured or killed, that immunity will become a true legal issue. In fact, if there are any innocent people in the vicinity of the warning shot, I would expect Kentucky police to charge First Degree Wanton Endangerment for “wantonly engag[ing] in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.” This is a typical charge for a drive by shooting where no one is injured or drunk driving when a minor is in the vehicle.
The next problem is one mentioned above and that is the possibility of he assailant fighting you for your gun and prevailing. It happened in multiple past cases where warning shots were fired. And that shot you just made took your sights off the assailant and gave him the ability to get in to a struggle for the gun.

I also looked at the Florida statute shared by @WildRose with respect to a change in law that allows the “use or threatened use of force” in self defense. I agree wholeheartedly that the use of deadly force is the last resort and, even when deadly force is authorized, the goal is to neutralize or stop the threat, not necessarily to kill the person. The question will arise as to whether a warning shot is considered a threatened use of force or is it actual use of force. If we take any guidance from Garner, "stop or I’ll shoot is a warning. Pulling the trigger on a firearm is actual use of force, especially if that bullet, fragments of the bullet or any pieces of what it does hit hurts someone.

I still stand by my earlier post that if your firearm comes out of your holster the warning shot is verbal and nothing leaves the barrel without an intended target.

6 Likes

Exactly Mike, especially for your last paragraph.

4 Likes

Often pointing a gun, even if it is not directly at someone, and firing a warning shot can be considered deadly force. If it is not considered deadly force it will probably just be considered some sort of reckless action by law enforcement (read: possible felony, I have seen it as a disorderly conduct when pointed directly in air… but that is not my endorsement to be clear).

The catch-22 is that if you are in a situation that authorizes you to use deadly force, then you may be forced to use deadly force instead of a warning shot. If you are not in a situation to use deadly force then you probably are also not privilieged by law to use a warning shot.

There’s really not much space in the law for warning shots

7 Likes

Thanks for chiming in @Tom_Grieve.

3 Likes

Absolutely no wasted warning shot(s). Vocal warning shouted, but once ignored be prepared to be met with deadly force, especially when perpetrator(s) advances their assault on my person, or another member of my family.

5 Likes

[quote=“MikeBKY, post:56, topic:1014”]

if your firearm comes out of your holster the warning shot is verbal and nothing leaves the barrel without an intended target.

I agree MikeBKY, the warning shot is verbal. The verbal word is to yell STOP, nothing else, just plain STOP.

3 Likes