Police Chiefs Add Warning Shots In Use Of Force Policy

[DanVoils]

I hear some prosecutors will try to imprison people for a warning shot... so, is popo going to prison?

I was always under the impression that a warning shot is prosecuted as felony endangerment. Where's that warning shot going?
Dan

 

[Gabriel]

I can buy this at least...I said (felt) this for years! Can you say politics?

This. It's a bunch of *******s that have been off the street too long bending to the will of liberal pukes and implementing flawed policy. Next thing you know we will be able to shoot people in the arms and legs in a non-lethal capacity.

 

[Old Dog]

You would think that an officer shouting "police, stop in the name of the law, freeze sucker or die" would be warning enough (along with all the flashing lights and sirens). Maybe they should just mail them an invitation to visit the HQ for further information instead. That would eliminate the need for all the guns and shooting and make lala land safer. Ha! Ha! By the way, where is that warning shot going to land?

 

[DRob]

From an IPD recruit class instructor in 1967. "Warning shots are the ones that missed". I believe the philosophy was when the bad guy realizes you've shot at him and missed, he should take it as a warning and surrender before your aim improves.

 

[GIJEW]

You'd think looking down the barrel ought to be warning enough--and what kind of message does "next time I'm gonna be serious and shoot at YOU instead of a bystander" send anyway?

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

I think Drob has it about right.

 

[Slawburger]

When your partner in crime gets shot... that's your warning.

 

[T.Lex]

So INGO was ahead of the curve on this one.

+1 for Liberty.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Generally, the policy on warning shots is extremely restrictive. The bullet must go into something safe, not just randomly launched. There must be some exceptional situation where it is appropriate, but deadly force is not yet the solution. The last such policy I saw was basically "you can....but you better have a REAL good explanation...and you'll be explaining it a lot.

So, while I disagree with the warning shot in most any circumstance, it's not as Willy-nilly as you might think.

 

[DanVoils]

Generally, the policy on warning shots is extremely restrictive. The bullet must go into something safe, not just randomly launched. There must be some exceptional situation where it is appropriate, but deadly force is not yet the solution. The last such policy I saw was basically "you can....but you better have a REAL good explanation...and you'll be explaining it a lot.

So, while I disagree with the warning shot in most any circumstance, it's not as Willy-nilly as you might think.

But is an officer under stress going to look around the perp to find a a safe backstop? I can't see a properly trained officer taking his eyes and concentration off of the perp long enough to evaluate a safe place to shoot into. I think it's just a really really stupid idea on every facet you look at it. Kinda like Obama's lap dog saying to shoot a shotgun into the air to scare off an intruder.
Dan

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But is an officer under stress going to look around the perp to find a a safe backstop? I can't see a properly trained officer taking his eyes and concentration off of the perp long enough to evaluate a safe place to shoot into. I think it's just a really really stupid idea on every facet you look at it. Kinda like Obama's lap dog saying to shoot a shotgun into the air to scare off an intruder.
Dan

Ok. Let's look at a hypothetical based on a recent situation. You're on the circle in downtown Indy. A large group of unarmed young urban yoots are surrounding you. Individually they are little threat, you are bigger, stronger, etc. As a group they can overwhelm you. You are next to a large planter/barricade full of potting soil. They are closing slowly talking themselves up.

Would a warning shot into the pot put them to flight? You want to be the guy on the news plugging a unarmed 15 year old, even if legally justified? If you have time to safely take the warning shot, should it not be an option?

There is no never. There is no always. There is certainly "almost never" but I've seen so many "well huh" things happen in shootings I'm not comfortable saying never.

 

[lonehoosier]

But is an officer under stress going to look around the perp to find a a safe backstop? I can't see a properly trained officer taking his eyes and concentration off of the perp long enough to evaluate a safe place to shoot into. I think it's just a really really stupid idea on every facet you look at it. Kinda like Obama's lap dog saying to shoot a shotgun into the air to scare off an intruder.
Dan

Man killed by Lake Station police had been saved by them months before | Lake County News | nwitimes.com

"Two windows and a door at the library branch were damaged in the shooting, said Carolyn Strickland, assistant director for the library system.

Police believe the library was damaged by stray bullets from the gunfire and was not an intended target, Byrd said. It's a "real possibility" the shots that damaged the library came from police, he said."

"Fifteen to 20 patrons and employees were inside the branch at the time of the shooting, officials said. No injuries were reported."

 

[femurphy77]

Bad guys gonna learn real quick that the first two shots don't count so why would that change their behavior? The world keeps spinning and people keep getting dumber.

 

[oldpink]

FWIW, when I was still serving on active duty in the Navy, my department head recounted a story about two armed gate guards -- I think at the Little Creek base, but my memory could be wrong on that -- one of whom deliberately fired his M-16 over a violent gate-crasher's head and the other firing for center of mass, instantly killing said crasher.
The guard who fired the warning shot was court-martialed, while the other guard was immediately returned to normal duty after getting the normal psych eval for anyone forced to use deadly force, whatever that entails.

 

[DanVoils]

Ok. Let's look at a hypothetical based on a recent situation. You're on the circle in downtown Indy. A large group of unarmed young urban yoots are surrounding you. Individually they are little threat, you are bigger, stronger, etc. As a group they can overwhelm you. You are next to a large planter/barricade full of potting soil. They are closing slowly talking themselves up.

Would a warning shot into the pot put them to flight? You want to be the guy on the news plugging a unarmed 15 year old, even if legally justified? If you have time to safely take the warning shot, should it not be an option?

There is no never. There is no always. There is certainly "almost never" but I've seen so many "well huh" things happen in shootings I'm not comfortable saying never.

Man killed by Lake Station police had been saved by them months before | Lake County News | nwitimes.com

"Two windows and a door at the library branch were damaged in the shooting, said Carolyn Strickland, assistant director for the library system.

Police believe the library was damaged by stray bullets from the gunfire and was not an intended target, Byrd said. It's a "real possibility" the shots that damaged the library came from police, he said."

"Fifteen to 20 patrons and employees were inside the branch at the time of the shooting, officials said. No injuries were reported."

But is an officer under stress going to look around the perp to find a a safe backstop? I can't see a properly trained officer taking his eyes and concentration off of the perp long enough to evaluate a safe place to shoot into. I think it's just a really really stupid idea on every facet you look at it. Kinda like Obama's lap dog saying to shoot a shotgun into the air to scare off an intruder.
Dan

So both of you are saying a warning shot is something that should be done? I still disagree. I can come up with a bunch of scenarios where it's not prudent. The shot into the planter while surrounded by a bunch of 15 year old punks wasn't what I was referring to as that is not as stressful as a lot of other calls. How about the drunken abusive husband storming out of the trailer gun in hand hell bent on shooting the officer? With his beat up drunken wife/baby mama/girl friend right behind him with the second round of attack since you don't need to be there. (Ever been on a domestic call?) Where are you going to shoot with your warning round? Into the ground? Ricochet probability. Into the trailer? Where's the baby at? Into the air? Yeah... About that...
Again my personal opinion is that warning shots are a stupid thing.
Dan

 

[DanVoils]

FWIW, when I was still serving on active duty in the Navy, my department head recounted a story about two armed gate guards -- I think at the Little Creek base, but my memory could be wrong on that -- one of whom deliberately fired his M-16 over a violent gate-crasher's head and the other firing for center of mass, instantly killing said crasher.
The guard who fired the warning shot was court-martialed, while the other guard was immediately returned to normal duty after getting the normal psych eval for anyone forced to use deadly force, whatever that entails.

My thought on this is where did the warning shot go?
Dan

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So both of you are saying a warning shot is something that should be done?

No. I'm saying that in rare and very specific circumstances, it may be a reasonable option.

I can come up with a bunch of scenarios where it's not prudent...

You do understand that nothing in the proposed policy makes it mandatory to fire a warning shot or that it's appropriate for every situation, yes?

 

[Hohn]

I carry a 9mm. It's going to take half a mag or so anyway, so those first shots count as warning, right?

 

[oldpink]

My thought on this is where did the warning shot go?
Dan

I believe that was one of the charges when he was brought up.
The other was for dereliction of duty.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

I carry a 9mm. It's going to take half a mag or so anyway, so those first shots count as warning, right?

LOL. DUUUUUUUDE. ....