[h=1]Never Fire a Warning Shot[/h]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=l0g84QeAtDw

By Kevin Michalowski // 01/29/2018




You are responsible for every round that comes out of your muzzle. A warning shot does nothing to help you stop the threat and will very likely give prosecutors a reason to claim that you were either not in imminent danger or acting in a reckless manner.
Once a prosecutor starts asking questions about why you fired a shot at something other than your attacker, your defense attorney has to deal with topics not related directly to your legal defense. Don’t do it. If you need to use your gun to stop a threat, fire it accurately at the threat and repeat that action until the threat stops. Warning shots cause more trouble than they are worth.


Just Don’t Do It
There is really no more to say on the topic. Warning shots cause problems. Avoid problems.

 

nfamousonline


You want your proof about why you shouldn't shoot a warning shot, ask Marissa Alexander. Ask her how a warning shot worked out for her when her savage ex husband attacked her and threatened to kill her even admitted to doing so in court and she still got convicted. She still served 3 years for just a warning shot and had the media and others not made a big fuss over her case she would still be in prison today all over a warning shot. Something to think about.

 

Joe Hartoebben I remember when it was legal and practiced by law enforcement. Until some officer fired a warning shot into air and when the round came back down it mortally wounded someone a couple blocks away. It is a good point. Kansas use to allow it in rural areas, but currently have changed their position were it is not allowed. If you are going to draw, it should only be to stop the threat.

 

gunner194943 If you have to go to court the lying scum sucking pig of a DA is going to say bad things about you anyway, if he/she does not have any factual things to say they will make some up and that is where the idea of "knowing where every round you fire is going, or you are accountable for every round you fire". The truth of the matter is that when cops shoot someone do they drive around for miles to determine that they can account for every bullet to match every case they find on the ground, of course not!


I agree with Kevin that when it is time to shoot someone, it is time to shoot not try to talk to the guy or pop off rounds someplace, you may need that ammo to shoot the guy some more! If you talk to most people who have been in a shooting and ask them how many rounds they fired they will tell you only a couple, unless that person is highly trained, trained much more that any cop who is forced to fire to protect themselves.
Good advise, but for the wrong reason, in court morons are going to ask you all types of dumb $hyt and most of it will not matter.

Cops have a 13% hit rate in cop shootings, are we really paying these guys to find every bullet which has been fired or do they only find the obvious ones, like the ones that hit the old lady while crossing the street 2 blocks down. Only a nut case would fire rounds in a self defense event to purposely miss the bad guy, every round is aimed at the target but if the hit rate for trained cops is 13% why on earth would a citizen be able to do much better?

 

Barry Carraway Maybe I did not make myself clear; I do not want to shoot anyone. My thoughts are to let them know I have a weapon and to leave me alone. In FL stand your grond absoultely does give you the right to defend yourself if you life is threatened or great bodily harm. In fact warning shots are now allowd and it was extended to cover anywhere you are leagally allowed to be not just your home.
Here you go:
This law, as outlined in Sections 776.012, and 776.013, Florida Statutes, expands the scope of a self-defense claim traditionally available in a criminal case by:
Eliminating the general of “duty of retreat” imposed at common law;
Presuming legal justification for the use of force in a person’s dwelling, residence, or vehicle; and
Offering immunity from prosecution for individuals who resort to force within the parameters of the statute.
In its simplest form, the statute provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if either:


the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (presuming a reasonable belief as to the necessity of force in the context of ‘dwellings,’ residences, or vehicles).

 

David Douglass The answer to your question lies in one factor---the unpredictability of reality. So...you fire your pistol into what you...at the time of stress...believe is a safe sensible place or area. However there was something hard enough there, to cause the bullet to skip and continue downrange to.....something you never intended it to travel. Someone else could be struck or you could get lucky.
.
You could also encounter a misfire, experience a jammed case, rendering your pistol inoperable. In which case the threat then...full of rage....attacks you, takes away your gun and ...who knows...the battle is on.
.
Or you could fire the round into the earth successfully and the threat has enough time to rush you.
.
Have you ever tried having someone rush you from 20 feet away in order to determine how much time it takes to physically take you down? And you should be made aware that, shooting WHILE an 'armed threat' is more than 22 feet away completely removes the essential element of "Imminent Threat'" which you will need to accomplish a legal credible self defense claim.
.
Your comparison is flawed in that....a verbal warning or command is NOT the equivalent to shooting a deadly weapon in order to determine true intent of the attacker in the eyes of law enforcement or the rest of the legal system.
.
Your threat could pin his word against your word, that he didn't really physically threaten you, but instead was just angry and it was YOU who brandished a weapon, fired it into the ground, and threaten him, just for being angry with you for what ever reason.
.
You would lose another element of a legal self defense claim, which is "Innocents" by attempting to scare or ward off the person whom you believe was a threat with brandishing and discharging a firearm BEFORE you were attacked--which ironically....proves you were not truly experiencing an Imminent Threat.
.
Your case for a legal self defense claim is therefore non-existent. You go to jail.

 

Dodged5 It is always extremely bad practice to fire a warning shot and you should never do it! But that being said, if you are rattled and for some misguided reason do fire a warning shot, NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances admit to it or say the words, "Warning Shot" to anyone! It was a misfire in the heat of the moment, a round that missed the target, or whatever. It was not a warning shot. Look at police shootings. What percentage of the shots fired by professionals actually hit the target? Missing is acceptable, warning shots are not.