Remember Warning Shots?

We were taught never to fire warning shots under any circumstances. Well, they’re back.

And I, for one, think it’s one of the most disastrous developments in the history of modern law enforcement.

Recently the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and various law enforcement organizations endorsed the firing of warning shots in the course of police work (see the IACP’s National Consensus Policy on Use of Force at theiacp.org). For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone would think this is a good idea. For years, I’ve argued against their use by fictional police (TV, movies, books). It wasn’t authentic; law enforcement agencies have outlawed them for decades.

I learned not to fire warning shots when I went through basic training and was taught how dangerous they can be, both for the officer and any innocents in the area. Nothing I have read or seen convinces me that this has changed. Sure, amending the policy on warning shots is a great CYA for police chiefs and government officials, but it puts the individual officer directly in the crosshairs of a litigation-happy public and actually exposes more people to danger, not lessens.

We’re taught in training that an officer is responsible for every bullet we fire, thus we’re also responsible for where those bullets land. Fire a warning shot into the air, onto the ground, or towards an object the officer believes would be a safe target and that bullet instead kills or injures an innocent, the officer will end up in court and without a job. Maybe even go to prison and certainly be subjected to civil litigation that’ll cost everything they have.

The city/county/state and agency head can point to the discretionary use of warning shots and put the blame entirely on the officer. Meanwhile a failure to use warning shots will also be litigated when an officer shoots and wounds or kills a suspect. Some will ask, “Why weren’t warning shots used?”

This policy is terribly flawed. Think about it. When confronting a deadly force situation, who has time to fire warning shots? When is the officer supposed to make this determination? In the split-second before he or she fires? If the suspect doesn’t stop, how much time does the officer have to rethink that decision and resort to deadly force? That’s cutting it pretty close to me.

LEOs already do the impossible. They walk a professional tightrope requiring them to balance duty with necessity. They relegate their personal lives to the background and work in a field where every action is recorded. Adding warning shots doesn’t contribute to an officer’s armory, it constitutes one more burden for them to carry.

Police organizations are understandably nervous about the public’s perception of their agencies and LEO/citizen interaction. But in their haste to place themselves under a protective umbrella, they’re hanging their rank and file out to dry. The current prohibition against firing warning shots makes sense.

Firing warning shots can be dangerous, no matter how well-intentioned or well-trained an officer might be. The IACP and organizations supporting this idea should be ashamed of themselves. They’re protecting their own behinds, not having their officers’ backs.