Or not so much.
Or not so much.
I'm thinking they wouldn't. They have to account for the trajectory of that warning shot.
Never, in most jurisdictions. it's against procedure.
I just looked it up, to edit this. I thought never, no way, but there are jurisdiction where they can. If you're setting your story in a real place, call them and ask.
I write when I'm inspired, and I see to it that I'm inspired at nine o'clock every morning. - Peter de Vries
Only in the movies.
Destiny Deceived - Internet serial story. Written by one of the best writers I have ever been.
"Having been an English literary graduate, I've been trying to avoid the idea of doing art ever since. I think the idea of art kills creativity. I think media are at their most interesting before anybody's thought of calling them art, when people still think they're just a load of junk."
It's not inconceivable that a cop who really, really doesn't want to shoot someone might violate procedure, but it's a good way to get killed, and he or she would certainly be raked over the coals in the subsequent investigation if it emerges that s/he "fired a warning shot."
Warning shots have a chance of killing bystanders. In the air, it must come down somewhere, at the ground it can ricochet. I was taught (army) to shoot only for the centre of visible body mass.
I'm in the Navy, not police, so take my advice for what it is worth.
Where I work, warning shots are only authorized with crew serve weapons and rifles. We would never shoot a warning shot with an M9.
Deadly Force is only authorized when the suspect shows ALL of the above criteria: Capability, Opportunity, and Intent.
AND deadly force is the last thing we want to do, we'd rather force you to comply than to kill you. If you charge us with a knife, if you're close enough we may shoot, but honestly, I'm probably going to spray you with OC before you get in that dangerous range.
Hope this helps!
The 1st Book of the Eden Series: Awakening 53,691/100,000 words
Short answer: no.
Longer version: You don't fire unless you truly feel you need to use deadly force. You don't shoot to wound. You don't fire shots up in the air or off in the distance where they can have unintended consequences. Firing your weapon is a last resort. This is why so many departments use tasers now in order to have a non-lethal option.
I'm a UK and US Police Firearms Instructor, the bottom line is no. You shoot to stop a threat , you don't shoot to wound or kill you just shoot to stop the threat. In the circumstances you outline with the man with the knife if he was warned and kept coming he would be shot center mass.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those that would do us harm" - George Orwell
Growing up in a family Chicago PD officers I would tell you legally no, actually well?
Warning shots across an enemy ship's bow notwithstanding.
Not an expert, but in modern times I think they would go with the taser or pepper spray if they could.
As with most military rules of engagement, police forces are typically taught to respect certain escalations of force and to try and restrict them from higher up the threat scales, if possible.
A drunken beligerent doesn't warrant drawing your weapon, let alone a warning shot. Neither does a protest march that has escalated into *some minor* physical property damage. They have response targets to various scenarios. Back in the day they might have fired a warning shot, before the advent of numerous non-lethal methods of escalation (pepper spray, water cannons, tazers, etc). That said the threat levels were likely less severe.
I can't think of **any** scenario a police officer didn't draw his pistol to shoot center of mass to stop an imminent threat to himself or a victim. That said, in a stand-off with people in an armoured Brink's truck, shooting the tires out may be considered as a 'warning shot' of sorts. We're parsing terminology though.
Warning shots of any sort would likely be limited to non-lethal forms of 'coersion' or 'influence.' Heck that's one of the reasons the tazer was developed; the arguements over tazer efficacy as a warning is likely another topic altogether.
In the United States the police are not trained to fire warning shots and, in most cases, are strictly prohibited against firing warning shots by their department policy.
This is primarily because a "warning shot" still has to land somewhere and there is the chance it could cause death or injury to some other person.
Another reason is that in the time it takes to decide to fire a warning shot, fire the shot, and wait to see if the suspect complies, the suspect could attack the officer.
My understanding is this has been the general policy of the vast majority of PD's in the U.S. going back to at least the 1980's or 1970's.
You can find recorded instances of police firing warning shots back in the 50's and earlier, but for anything contemporary, the answer is "No."
Btw, other countries have different policies and it seems warning shots are still used by police in other places either as a regular practice or as part of "crowd control" during a riot, etc.
No warning shots.
If it's time to shoot, put the round where it'll do some good.
Not an expert, but wouldn't you want to keep your gun aimed at the miscreant at all times? Shifting your aim to get a warning shot off doesn't sound a very sensible thing to do.
As far as I am concerned, an armed police officer facing a dangerous suspect would take aim and then keep that aim locked in whilst negotiating.
I'd also be worried that the sound of the gunshot might spook the bad guy into doing something stooopid.
So no warning shots in real life. You might spin a story about a maverick cop who breaks the rules, Dirty Harry style. But, apart from that, it doesn't feel realistic.
Weapons drawn on an unresisting suspect, for example at a traffic stop, usually mean the person is known to be armed and dangerous--thus the threat level has already escalated.
Edit: if Lorna is correct, this is only general and not universal US policy. However, I've never met an officer who would fire a warning shot--it's a stupid thing to do, for a variety of reasons.
Last edited by L.C. Blackwell; 05-06-2012 at 06:24 AM.
I am sometimes here. You can also find me at: First They Came for the Communists, a human rights blog.
"We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can't think what anybody sees in them.”
From another point of view, if you're a wrongdoer about to confront a policeperson forcefully enough for them to draw their weapon, that officer wants you to be very clear that if they need to fire, they will most likely kill you. Not, "maybe they'll fire at me, and maybe they won't."
Troy Berrier has the world at his feet. He is about to take the freestyle motorcross world by storm when he wins the world MX-Stream game finals.
But Troy's definition of the word, “life”, is about to be shifted. The ensuing struggle will test his friendships and his faith in himself.
As for the original question: as a law enforcement officer I will not, ever, do warning shots. Not with my gun, my Taser, my O.C., baton or any other tool I use in the job - except maybe with my citations.
I would give 'warnings' where those are concerned. But nothing else.
"Oh? And who are you? The primate garbage police?"
From a logistical point of view, warning shots leave one vulnerable, and in that window, Bad Things Happen.
I believe, and please, law enforcement officers, correct me if I'm mistaken, the officer has to log in every shot they take with their side arm when the day is done. If five bullets were fired, then they need to logged when, where and how. "Warning Shot" might not look good in a report.
At least that's what I got from my own research. And again, if I'm mistaken, I welcome correction.
Situations where firing a warning shot is acceptable procedure: None.
And yes, any time you discharge your firearm, for any reason (outside the range) a full report detailing the circumstances is required.
Not at the end of the day or shift. At the conclusion of the episode, or as soon as is practicable.