Warning and/or Signal Shots

[Oldgringo]

Hey Yall,

Here's an interesting site that discusses the pros and cons of not shooting to kill...at first.

http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think?

[Keith B]

I will give a signal shot, then a warning shot before my third one. Signal and warning shot is to COM. Then if they don't heed those, I would shoot a shot to stop to the head.

IMO, warning and signal shots are a bad idea. I was taught you NEVER discharge your duty weapon unless you are shooting to stop an aggressor or to stop a crime in progress that had no other means of being stopped.

Warning and signal shots have too great a risk of damaging property, or worse injuring or killing someone you didn't intend too. When it comes time to shoot, you shoot to stop the threat, period.

[seamusTX]

Warning shots are a legitimate naval tactic, when the courses of both vessels are predictable, and the projectile is going to fall harmlessly into the water.

Under Texas law, firing a shot at a person, vehicle, or habitation is the felony offense of deadly conduct. Avoiding conviction requires exactly the same justification as actually shooting a person, that is, to prevent the other's unlawful use of deadly force, kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, burglary, arson, or theft or criminal mischief in the night time.

Signal shots may have had a reasonable use at one time, but I think cell phones have largely ruled them out.

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

Warning shots are a legitimate naval tactic, when the courses of both vessels are predictable, and the missile is going to fall harmlessly into the water.

Under Texas law, firing a shot at a person, vehicle, or habitation is the felony offense of deadly conduct. Avoiding conviction requires exactly the same justification as actually shooting a person, that is, to prevent the other's unlawful use of deadly force, kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, burglary, arson, or theft or criminal mischief in the night time.

Signal shots may have had a reasonable use at one time, but I think cell phones have largely ruled them out.

- Jim

Cell Phones - good point, very good point - if you're in an area with reception.

[seamusTX]

It is possible to be in a place where cell phones don't work. I have been. However, the police these days are likely to consider firing a shot an announcement of hostility.

Things just aren't the way they were in the old westerns, and they probably weren't really that way in the 19th century.

- Jim

[WillieD]

Hey Yall,

Here's an interesting site that discusses the pros and cons of not shooting to kill...at first.

http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think?

You should never shoot to kill anyways.

[Jeremae]

My first two shots to COM are a warning to stop or I will shoot you in the face.

[AJSully421]

I read somewhere that on average, shots to COM by a service caliber handgun were a 20% proposition... ie. every hit gave you a 20% chance of death... so if you're shot in the chest 2x it is 40% survival rate... again, no hard and fast rule, just an average. Same averages stated that hits above the shoulders (neck and head) were 60%.

so, 2 to the chest is my warning shot, and then one to the head = 100%

I don't get the whole warning shot thing anyhow... weren't you all taught that you only draw your weapon when you are 100% going to use it? I treat drawing the same as firing, and i will not draw unless i am 100% legally justified under PC 9.

[The Annoyed Man]

Even if a warning shot were legally defensible, and I don't believe it is, it is still a tactical error because each warning shot taken leaves you down one round for use in protecting yourself.

Oldgringo, I mean no disrespect at all when I write this, but I note that you mentioned warning shots on another thread as well, and the concept wasn't well received there either. Again, meaning no disrespect, but it looks to me like you might be a little bit conflicted about the idea of having to shoot somebody, and that you would feel more solidly on the moral high ground if you included a warning shot in your "counter-threat display" before actually shooting someone. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

But if that is the case, may I suggest that A) if you shout your warnings to stay back and make it plain through body language that you are deadly serious, then you will have already discharged your moral responsibilities in the matter; B) given the suddenness and lack of warning with which an attack can be launched against you, there may not even be time to shout a warning, let alone get off a warning shot. In other words, you're going to be pushed from condition yellow, straight through condition orange, and into condition red in the matter of half a second. Are you dead certain that you can get a warning shot off under those circumstances in which your bullet trajectory will not have unintended consequences? Are you dead certain that the time taken to fire a warning shot won't waste whatever time you would have had to actually defend yourself under a rushing attack?

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with the idea. I certainly don't want to shoot anybody. But if it comes to it, I'll use whatever fractions of seconds I have available to me to make sure that my shots hit the target instead of wasting those precious fractions of seconds trying to get off a warning shot before shooting the assailant. After all he made a morality based decision too, and the fact that he made a poor choice does not absolve him of the consequences of his decision making. That puts me morally in the clear.

[longhorn_92]

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with the idea. I certainly don't want to shoot anybody. But if it comes to it, I'll use whatever fractions of seconds I have available to me to make sure that my shots hit the target instead of wasting those precious fractions of seconds trying to get off a warning shot before shooting the assailant. After all he made a morality based decision too, and the fact that he made a poor choice does not absolve him of the consequences of his decision making. That puts me morally in the clear.

[seamusTX]

... given the suddenness and lack of warning with which an attack can be launched against you, there may not even be time to shout a warning, let alone get off a warning shot. In other words, you're going to be pushed from condition yellow, straight through condition orange, and into condition red in the matter of half a second.

This is an excellent point.

In the stress of combat, you will do what you are mentally prepared to do. If you are looking around for a sandbox to fire a warning shot into, you lose. And if you fire a shot wildly, you could be looking at a manslaughter or deadly conduct charge.

Focus on the target.

Excaliber will rightly say that you have to be aware of other potential threats, but we have only two eyes, and they point in the same direction (unless you're cross-eyed, but I digress).

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

Even if a warning shot were legally defensible, and I don't believe it is, it is still a tactical error because each warning shot taken leaves you down one round for use in protecting yourself.

Oldgringo, I mean no disrespect at all when I write this, but I note that you mentioned warning shots on another thread as well, and the concept wasn't well received there either. Again, meaning no disrespect, but it looks to me like you might be a little bit conflicted about the idea of having to shoot somebody, and that you would feel more solidly on the moral high ground if you included a warning shot in your "counter-threat display" before actually shooting someone. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

But if that is the case, may I suggest that A) if you shout your warnings to stay back and make it plain through body language that you are deadly serious, then you will have already discharged your moral responsibilities in the matter; B) given the suddenness and lack of warning with which an attack can be launched against you, there may not even be time to shout a warning, let alone get off a warning shot. In other words, you're going to be pushed from condition yellow, straight through condition orange, and into condition red in the matter of half a second. Are you dead certain that you can get a warning shot off under those circumstances in which your bullet trajectory will not have unintended consequences? Are you dead certain that the time taken to fire a warning shot won't waste whatever time you would have had to actually defend yourself under a rushing attack?

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with the idea. I certainly don't want to shoot anybody. But if it comes to it, I'll use whatever fractions of seconds I have available to me to make sure that my shots hit the target instead of wasting those precious fractions of seconds trying to get off a warning shot before shooting the assailant. After all he made a morality based decision too, and the fact that he made a poor choice does not absolve him of the consequences of his decision making. That puts me morally in the clear.

Thank you - good points all. Like you, I'd rather not have to shoot anyone if I can keep from it. The preponderance of the evidence and certainly the consensus of opinion is that warning and/or signal shots are NOT recommended/allowed procedures for the police and perhaps not for the civilian either.

Even though I haven't had to pull a gun on anyone since 1971, I am confident that I will shoot and I will shoot to kill - without concern or remorse for the morality of the situation or for the aggressor's age, family, friends or relations - if there is no way around it. We'll just have to deal with the lawsuit that's sure to come thereafter.

This question (warning/signal shots) was put forward here and elsewhere for thought and response. I, for one, have learned from it. It will be real interesting to see how we all handle our individual threats in the situations to come.

I think we can stick a fork in this thread and call it done.

[bdickens]

The ONLY reason to shoot is to stop the threat!

[atxgun]

The ONLY reason to shoot is to stop the threat!

I believe this is what he meant. But word choices like these could make a big diff when the grand jury is deciding on whether to bill or no-bill.

[tboesche]

Even if a warning shot were legally defensible, and I don't believe it is, it is still a tactical error because each warning shot taken leaves you down one round for use in protecting yourself.

Oldgringo, I mean no disrespect at all when I write this, but I note that you mentioned warning shots on another thread as well, and the concept wasn't well received there either. Again, meaning no disrespect, but it looks to me like you might be a little bit conflicted about the idea of having to shoot somebody, and that you would feel more solidly on the moral high ground if you included a warning shot in your "counter-threat display" before actually shooting someone. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

But if that is the case, may I suggest that A) if you shout your warnings to stay back and make it plain through body language that you are deadly serious, then you will have already discharged your moral responsibilities in the matter; B) given the suddenness and lack of warning with which an attack can be launched against you, there may not even be time to shout a warning, let alone get off a warning shot. In other words, you're going to be pushed from condition yellow, straight through condition orange, and into condition red in the matter of half a second. Are you dead certain that you can get a warning shot off under those circumstances in which your bullet trajectory will not have unintended consequences? Are you dead certain that the time taken to fire a warning shot won't waste whatever time you would have had to actually defend yourself under a rushing attack?

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with the idea. I certainly don't want to shoot anybody. But if it comes to it, I'll use whatever fractions of seconds I have available to me to make sure that my shots hit the target instead of wasting those precious fractions of seconds trying to get off a warning shot before shooting the assailant. After all he made a morality based decision too, and the fact that he made a poor choice does not absolve him of the consequences of his decision making. That puts me morally in the clear.

I could not have said it better. Warning shots are for TV.