Do police fire warning shots?

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I'm thinking they wouldn't. They have to account for the trajectory of that warning shot.
 

lorna_w

Hybrid Grump
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
3,262
Reaction score
3,236
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.
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
Only in the movies.
Even in films, they generally have a megaphone, rather than a warning shot.
"This is the police. You are surrounded. Lay your weapons down and come out of the building with your hands where we can see them."
Probably more effective too.
 

Mustafa

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
350
Reaction score
15
Location
right behind you
Even in films, they generally have a megaphone, rather than a warning shot.
"This is the police. You are surrounded. Lay your weapons down and come out of the building with your hands where we can see them."
Probably more effective too.


I meant more in the sense that someone is approaching, say with a knife, from a distance (a dozen or so meters), and they tell they guy to stop or they'll shoot. The guy doesn't stop so they fire a warning shot to show they're serious. No?
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I meant more in the sense that someone is approaching, say with a knife, from a distance (a dozen or so meters), and they tell they guy to stop or they'll shoot. The guy doesn't stop so they fire a warning shot to show they're serious. No?

No. If you tell him to stop and the guy keeps coming, you'd be surprised how much ground a crazy person can cover in one second, and even after you shoot him, a person with a knife can keep coming, even if he dies of his wounds afterwards. People have taken many rounds and still charged a cop with a knife. So by the time someone with a knife is within rushing distance, it's already serious. Cops don't point their guns unless they intend to shoot if the suspect does not stop/retreat/drop the weapon.

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."
 

Drachen Jager

Professor of applied misanthropy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
17,171
Reaction score
2,284
Location
Vancouver
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.
 

Forlorn Radiance

Thick skin:Check. Published book:?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia Beach, VA
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!
 

Soccer Mom

Crypto-fascist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
18,604
Reaction score
8,039
Location
Under your couch
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.
 

Steve Collins

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
227
Reaction score
32
Location
Florida
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.
 

I survived

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
116
Reaction score
4
Chicago PD family member

Growing up in a family Chicago PD officers I would tell you legally no, actually well?
 

Becky Black

Writing my way off the B Ark
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
176
Location
UK
Website
beckyblack.wordpress.com
I meant more in the sense that someone is approaching, say with a knife, from a distance (a dozen or so meters), and they tell they guy to stop or they'll shoot. The guy doesn't stop so they fire a warning shot to show they're serious. No?

The thing is, does firing a warning shot actually demonstrate that the warning you just gave "if you don't stop I will shoot you" is serious? Because if you say you will shoot someone if they continue, and they do continue and you don't shoot them but do something else instead, then you aren't serious, are you?
 

Astronomer

I'm an excellent poofreader.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
508
Reaction score
63
Location
North Texas
Website
www.androidastronomer.com
The thing is, does firing a warning shot actually demonstrate that the warning you just gave "if you don't stop I will shoot you" is serious? Because if you say you will shoot someone if they continue, and they do continue and you don't shoot them but do something else instead, then you aren't serious, are you?

This. Besides what experts have already said, a warning shot is an equivocation, not a demonstration of intent. It would be better that the guy rushing you with a knife think you're a bad shot than that you missed intentionally.

Warning shots across an enemy ship's bow notwithstanding. :)
 

TNTales

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Not an expert, but in modern times I think they would go with the taser or pepper spray if they could.
 

fdesrochers

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
213
Reaction score
10
Location
Fredericton, NB
Escalation of Force

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.
 

Trebor1415

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
653
Reaction score
82
Location
Michigan
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.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
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.
 

L.C. Blackwell

Keeper of Fort Blanket
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
521
Location
The Coffee Shop
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.

It's not. Here in the US, you don't draw your weapon unless you're prepared to use deadly force. Once that gun comes out of the holster, the only difference between a dead suspect or a live suspect is whether he chooses compliance or aggression. Which is why the police try their best to keep things from escalating to that level.

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:

chevbrock

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
966
Reaction score
179
Location
Hunter Valley, Australia
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."
 

Rabe

the living dead
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
615
Reaction score
79
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.

As an O.C. instructor, I'm very concerned by the above statement because, in the theorized example given, by the time the suspect comes into effective implementation range of O.C., he's already in the dangerous range.

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.

Rabe...
 

Cavalier

Verschränkung baby!
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Website
chalybs.wordpress.com
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.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
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.
Another (ex) police officer weighing in.

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.