Warning shots are not helping anyone

[gjones77]

I wonder if people who have received military training or have been deployed into a war zone where they have had to fire their weapon at an enemy are better able to pull the trigger without hesitation or second thought than someone like me who has no formal training.

I can't speak for every soldier or military unit, but when I was in the USAF, during my training at the Security Police Academy you were taught to look for 3 preconditions, if met then shoot, we used a system called "FATS" (Fire Arms Training Simulator) that put us into shoot/don't shoot scenarios, by the time all was said and done you didn't even think about it, it became instinct once the preconditions were met.

As for in combat, there's even less thinking, you're trained to react and make quick assessments of the situation and act to stop the threat.

That was the long answer, the short answer...

Yes, you pull without hesitation because you understand that it isn't the movies, there is no retake, it's his life or yours and your fellow soldiers, and they're your family, so there's no thinking or consideration in the matter.

 

[mike01824]

Pussies shot to stop. I shot to kill. And nobody will change that attitude. 3 .45 center mass if that doesn't do it then 3 more. And I have 3 more after that. Don't want to be a keyboard commando but.

God forbid anyone ever have to actually shoot someone in self defense its going to be posts like this that further jam up the situation. Anyone is naive to think the AG won't be digging up dirt to help strengthen their case.

 

[groundscrapers]

Pussies shot to stop. I shot to kill. And nobody will change that attitude. 3 .45 center mass if that doesn't do it then 3 more. And I have 3 more after that. Don't want to be a keyboard commando but.

You just described shooting to stop a threat. A head shot will stop a thread, 3 to center mass will stop a threat, if the threat persists then it may take further force to stop that threat. You are not shooting to kill someone you are shooting to stop the threat against your life.

 

[AntiHippie]

I do believe that in most circumstances a warning shot is justified.

The first round on target serves to warn the threat that more is forthcoming if he continues to demonstrate the weapon, opportunity, and intent to use deadly force on you.

See, it's a matter of perspective.

 

[groundscrapers]

I can't speak for every soldier or military unit, but when I was in the USAF, during my training at the Security Police Academy you were taught to look for 3 preconditions, if met then shoot, we used a system called "FATS" (Fire Arms Training Simulator) that put us into shoot/don't shoot scenarios, by the time all was said and done you didn't even think about it, it became instinct once the preconditions were met.

As for in combat, there's even less thinking, you're trained to react and make quick assessments of the situation and act to stop the threat.

That was the long answer, the short answer...

Yes, you pull without hesitation because you understand that it isn't the movies, there is no retake, it's his life or yours and your fellow soldiers, and they're your family, so there's no thinking or consideration in the matter.

I was taught JAM:

Jeopardy to believe they can cause you harm.

Ability to cause harm (weapon)

Means to cause harm. (They are using the weapon to hurt you)

 

[jobowker]

I do believe that in most circumstances a warning shot is justified.

The first round on target serves to warn the threat that more is forthcoming if he continues to demonstrate the weapon, opportunity, and intent to use deadly force on you.

See, it's a matter of perspective.

I think your post may be misconstrued, either by me or others depending on what you were trying to say. If by saying "first round on target" you meant that your warning shot is the same as others trying to stop a threat, I can understand that line of thinking, although I wouldn't try for a hollywood style 'shoot the gun out of his hand' nonsense. If you really meant that you would fire a legit warning shot, the first round serves to prove that you didn't didn't feel that your life was in danger. The second round proves that you felt the need to use one of those icky guns to kill someone and you were just looking for an excuse.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

God forbid anyone ever have to actually shoot someone in self defense its going to be posts like this that further jam up the situation. Anyone is naive to think the AG won't be digging up dirt to help strengthen their case.

you mean DA, not AG.

 

[AntiHippie]

I think your post may be misconstrued, either by me or others depending on what you were trying to say. If by saying "first round on target" you meant that your warning shot is the same as others trying to stop a threat, I can understand that line of thinking, although I wouldn't try for a hollywood style 'shoot the gun out of his hand' nonsense. If you really meant that you would fire a legit warning shot, the first round serves to prove that you didn't didn't feel that your life was in danger. The second round proves that you felt the need to use one of those icky guns to kill someone and you were just looking for an excuse.

No, I was just being a smartass. What I was getting at was that the 'warning' should be the assailant getting shot the first time.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

No. I know the guy you are talking about and understand about the Secret Service training to take a bullet for the Principal, this Agent was further away when the shots were fired. I will look for a video

 

[M1911]

I was taught JAM:

Jeopardy to believe they can cause you harm.

Ability to cause harm (weapon)

Means to cause harm. (They are using the weapon to hurt you)

I was taught AOP: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy.

Do they have ability to cause you (or another) death or grave bodily injury?
Do they have the opportunity to cause you (or another) death or grave bodily injury?
Is their behavior putting you (or another) in jeopardy?

For example, consider two scenarios in which a person has a baseball bat.

Scenario 1: Person is outside your house with a baseball bat in his hand, screaming and yelling that he's going to kill you. You are inside your house, behind a locked door. Does he have the ability to kill you? Yes, he has a baseball bat. Is his behavior putting you in jeopardy? Yes, he is saying he wants to kill you. Does he have the opportunity to kill you? No, because their is locked door between you.

Scenario 2: Person is standing right next to you with a baseball bat and you are crouched down. Does he have the ability to kill you? Yes. Does he have the opportunity to kill you? Yes. Is his behavior putting you in jeopardy? Well, if he is squared up to the pitcher and you are the catcher, no. If he is screaming he is going to kill you, then yes.

 

[jkeeley1]

I wonder how many "warning shots" are people throwing the first shot on a da/sa pistol because they only practice in single action and they don't want to admit they suck.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[jbize1]

Agree 100%. No way in today's society should we do this.

I do have to share two stories though. My dad fired warning shots on two separate occasions (this was in Utah in the 70's and 80's). The first one, as my Dad tells it, he an my mom had got in a fight and he decided to go for a walk. Just after he left the house he had this strong feeling that he should go back and get his .357 revolver. He went back, got it, and put it into a shoulder holster. As he was walking in the foothills above our house a truckload of drunk guys pulled up and told him to "come over here." He said, "No, my friend says I don't have to." The guys laughed and said, "What friend? Get over here!" My dad repeated again that his friend said he didn't have to. He then pulled his revolver from the holster and fired at their feet. They jumped in their truck and sped off. The second time he heard a noise next door (the neighbors were out of town), grabbed his gun, and went to investigate. He found a local teen trying to break in through a window in the back. He told the kid to take off or he was going to shoot him. The kid laughed and said, "You wouldn't dare." My dad then fired into the ground next to his feet. The kid freaked out and ran off.

I don't recommend this, but it does make for some fun family stories.

THIS is a great story, sounds like your dad was the man

I believe a mall ninja just outed himself.

LMFAO, Vellnueve always makes me laugh, I love it and M1911 , seems like you are always right, i like your style sir, keep up the good work

 

[FreeWillie]

Perhaps you are not understanding the distinction. If you shoot him 3 times in the chest and he collapses, you shot to stop. He might die. He might not. And if you were in danger of death or grave bodily injury, that is likely justifiable.

On the other hand, if you shoot once in the chest and he collapses, then you walk up to him while he is prone on the floor and no longer a threat, and then shoot him two more times, you have just shot to kill and committed murder.

Same number of shots in the same location, but a much different outcome.

Your goal is to stop him. You are using deadly force. It may well kill him. But that wasn't your intent. If you say anything else you may be talking your way into jail.

Then it is semantics. Once he goes down I end my defense, I don't kick a person in the balls when they aren't a threat. But while they are standing I won't back off.

 

[M1911]

Then it is semantics. Once he goes down I end my defense, I don't kick a person in the balls when they aren't a threat. But while they are standing I won't back off.

No, it isn't semantics. It is about intent, which is central to the distinction between justifiable homicide and homicide.

You shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat stops, you stop shooting.

 

[jobowker]

No, it isn't semantics. It is about intent, which is central to the distinction between justifiable homicide and homicide.

You shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat stops, you stop shooting.

Why is this concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

 

[jobowker]

No, I was just being a smartass. What I was getting at was that the 'warning' should be the assailant getting shot the first time.

Ah. Sometimes I'm just a bit dense.

 

[FreeWillie]

No, it isn't semantics. It is about intent, which is central to the distinction between justifiable homicide and homicide.

You shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat stops, you stop shooting.

I get your point, Thank You. I'm not being sarcastic, I get it. Again Thank You.

 

[depicts]

I can't speak for the other Vets in here.... everyone has their own opinion.

I will say for myself that "back in the day" I was more tuned in to being ready and aggressive. The training is still there, but there are decades of peace and safety around me, and I think there might be a nano-second (or more) before I could react like the old days, "downrange".

 

[ericcif]

I can't give a warning shot anyway because the first bullet in my mag is a snap cap

 

[depicts]

I can't give a warning shot anyway because the first bullet in my mag is a snap cap

If you had a Glock with a bayonet you wouldn't have this problem. *S*

 

[william_munny]

I can't give a warning shot anyway because the first bullet in my mag is a snap cap

This is good, it'll give you a chance to run away when your gun gets taken from you.

 

[mark056]

Pussies shot to stop. I shot to kill. And nobody will change that attitude. 3 .45 center mass if that doesn't do it then 3 more. And I have 3 more after that. Don't want to be a keyboard commando but.

If you are ever in an armed encounter, do not ever state that you shoot to kill. You always shoot to stop or otherwise incapacitate your attacker. M1911 is totally spot-on for the reasons he cited.

A warning in shot across the bow at sea harkens back to the day when there was no good ship to ship communication, and the warning shot meant stop and prepare to be boarded or else. I realize that signal flags were used early on, but lest there be no confusion back in those days of sail, the warning shot left no room for interpretation. Whether a warning shot is really valid today in maritime operations is questionable in IMO. I think it is more a "law of the sea" thing based on tradition, also too, it ensures that a message is sent in the event a radio is turned off or not working which can happen.

 

[GunGrey]

Arm chair commando's fallout

 

[FreeWillie]

I can't speak for the other Vets in here.... everyone has their own opinion.

I will say for myself that "back in the day" I was more tuned in to being ready and aggressive. The training is still there, but there are decades of peace and safety around me, and I think there might be a nano-second (or more) before I could react like the old days, "downrange".

This is a great point. Some of us "grew up" in the military and that's where we learned to defend ourselves. You were a Tiger or you were toast. That training is still with us. Our environment has changed but the training is still what it is.

 

[FreeWillie]

Arm chair commando's fallout

I flew 154 combat missions in Vietnam in a single seat attack aircraft usually carrying about 7400 pounds of ordinance .

 

[EddieCoyle]

I flew 154 combat missions in Vietnam in a single seat attack aircraft usually carrying about 7400 pounds of ordinance .

Did you bomb to stop the threat?

 

[GunGrey]

I flew 154 combat missions in Vietnam in a single seat attack aircraft usually carrying about 7400 pounds of ordinance .

i have never been in the armed forces but i did shoot plastic bb guns in the wood once

 

[FreeWillie]

i have never been in the armed forces but i did shoot plastic bb guns in the wood once

That's a start! Maybe we should go squirrel hunting together. I have a pellet rifle you might like.

 

[M1911]

I flew 154 combat missions in Vietnam in a single seat attack aircraft usually carrying about 7400 pounds of ordinance .

I'm just a keyboard commando. My hat's off to you, sir.

 

[FreeWillie]

Did you bomb to stop the threat?

I bombed to kill, to destroy as much as I could, to crush the will of my enemy to fight.. My guys were worth more than the other guys. Any time they wanted to say "NO MORE, I GIVE" I would have stopped and accepted their surrender.