Antonio should be pushing up Daisey’s with two shots.
No warning shots, no attempts to wound.
If you must use deadly force, by God, make it DEADLY.
“Warning shots sometimes work with wild animals. Sometimes, they don’t.”
Racist.
L
A gun’s a tool. Your tool? Use it as you see fit.
My warning shot will be at the center of mass.
My grandfather was a police Chief. One day, in their infinite wisdom, the powers that be issued an edict that the police were required to fire a warning shot.
This was in the days of the .38 revolver being standard issue. In the morning pre-shift briefing, his officers were instructed henceforth to visit the range prior to going on-shift so that they could fire their warning shot.
I don’t fire warning shots. Nor do I rack the action on my Benelli M1 Super 90. There’s already a round up.
I see real issues of firing warning shots in an urban or suburban setting. Namely, the bullets go somewhere. I’d not want to accidentally hit a neighbor, their children, the car windows or their dogs.
If I am threatened enough to need a weapon I don’t think a warning shot is appropriate or needed. If I am just warning someone to get off my property there are probably better ways to do do that.
A warning shot is a message:
“I’m not going to shoot you, please, grab my gun.”
My warning “shot” is the racking of my shotgun. That should be sufficient warning for anyone.
Most importantly, however, is after firing that FIRST shot, remember that deadpersons do not come into court two years later telling of how “I beggged that man fo my life, on my knees, and all he said was that he just wanted to kill him a n***** today and shot me right through the left testicle.”
Instead of this getting messy what with Mr. Home Invader having a lot of rea$$ons to lie, go ahead and empty the clip. Its in every police training manual.
IF I have to fire, they are not going to be warning shots. They are going to be shots aimed/intended to hit the target.
An old shooting coach of mine (Russian, so his English was always awkward) used to say:
“Warning shot? Yes. Two warning shot in chest, one warning shot in head.”
Thanks for this OP it has been shared down my distribution line.
Yep - situational awareness is key. If one wants to fire a warning shot, be far enough away to be able to get the gun in play "for real" if the perp opts to attack.
Sounds like this guy displayed a lack of resolve that the perp recognized - can't see any reason for two warning shots otherwise. One max to display the weapon is loaded and after that, shoot for effect --- of course shooting for effect may be the most reasonable first option in a great deal of cases.
Warning shots? There is no such thing! If you have the right under law, any shot you discharge, should be into the target!
No. I disagree, vehemently. You don't brandish your weapon (that's actually illegal in many places). You only draw or bring a weapon (eg. rifle or shotgun) to bear if you believe your life or someone else's life is in imminent danger. Because by drawing/bringing to bear you are bringing deadly force into the mix - you had better be justified in doing so.
Therefore, if you believe lives are in danger, why the {expletive} would you hesitate or in any way screw around? You end that deadly threat in the most direct, sure way you can. In short, "...without having to shoot someone..." is fantasy. If you've drawn your weapon, you've already crossed the Rubicon, you are literally fighting for your life.
I will not ever fire a warning shot. I may accidentally miss, I'm human and it would be an incredibly stressful situation. But I will not fire a warning shot - if someone is threatening me or some other innocent with deadly force they've already made their decision, and I've made mine. If they are going to change their mind and surrender they have exactly as long as it takes me to draw and aim to make that decision and communicate it to me. I carry a Glock (ie. no manual safety) with one in the chamber - so that's not a lot of time.