Recently my attention was brought to a paper published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) titled National Consensus Policy on Use of Force. One section of the paper dealt with warning shots, and read as follows:

“Warning shots are inherently dangerous. Therefore, a warning shot must have a defined target and shall not be fired unless:

(1) the use of deadly force is justified;

(2) the warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and

(3) the officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.”

I read that section several times because I thought my eyes must be deceiving me. But sure enough, the paper was condoning warning shots under certain conditions.

Let’s scrutinize those conditions in order:

  • If the use of “deadly force is justified,” then the shot should be placed onto the threat. Period.
  • How does an officer know if a warning shot will not pose substantial risk of injury to others? The stereotypical warning shot is fired into the air—and what goes up must come down.

    A statute in Arizona called “Shannon’s Law” is named after 14-year-old Shannon Smith, who was killed while standing in her backyard when a bullet that had been fired into the air struck her in the top of the head. Passed in 2000, the law makes randomly shooting in the air a felony. So, unless a department’s policy specifically authorizes warning shots (unlikely), an officer who fires a warning shot into the air is not acting under color of authority, and in Arizona he is committing a felony.

  • The last condition in the paper is almost an oxymoron: “reduce the possibility of using deadly force” by discharging a firearm. Really? I think the IACP needs to institute a policy against writing a paper while inebriated.

What’s next from the IACP? Recommending shooting a gun out of a felon’s hands while firing at an officer?

I want to be perfectly clear on this: A warning shot is never, repeat never, acceptable.

Until next time, stay low and watch your back.

sig

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

— Previous article

Old World Meets New: Bergara LRP Elite Bolt-Action Rifle

Next article —

Browning Black Label Pistols

You May Also Like
Read More
    AAll Articles

    Medic Up: Realistic Sensory Overload Training

    "Medic Up!" The dreaded call comes over the sound of explosions and gunfire. I hurry through a smoky room, headed in the direction from which the call came. As I step through the doorway, a hand seizes the back of my collar, thrusting me to the floor. "They're shooting through here!" an operator yells. "Low crawl across!"
    Read More
      AAll Articles

      A Pistol for the Future: Smith & Wesson M&P M2.0 Pistol

      The S&W M&P is issued by many agencies, including the Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). Maricopa County is the fifth largest county in the United States. Encompassing 9,226 square miles, it is actually larger than four states. MCSO is the third largest sheriff’s office in the country. MCSO employs 3,300 people (sworn, detention, and civilian). With a budget of $353.4 million, they have the resources to choose whichever pistol they feel is best for their needs—and they chose the M&P as their issue pistol. Incidentally, the Shield is MCSO’s only officially authorized off-duty gun. In January, S&W introduced the latest pistol to the M&P line—the M&P M2.0™ pistol.