[Alupis]

> even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage

Calling BS on this story, sorry. No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop.

A "warning shot" - where do you fire it? Into the road so it can ricochet and kill an innocent onlooker? Into the air so it can do the same? Into a building with an unknown backstop? This is beyond absurd.

> Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded

You have some fundamental facts wrong here.

[palmetieri2000]

No he doesnt, you are wrong, just more confident.

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

A few seconds of googling clearly demonstrates MANY circumstances in which the NATO is encouraged or required to fire warning shots.

Seeing as you struggled to discover any information before declaring the other commenter incorrect, let me fetch some for you.

[Above source, page 159, Bosnia 2001] "Further, warning shots were permitted, even encouraged, and the use of deadly force against assailants fleeing an attack was not even covered. "

[Above source, page 161, footnote 24] See infra notes 108-16 and accompanying text for a discussion of how current ROE require U.S. troops to use both verbal warning and warning shots, while the DOJ policy on the use of deadly force does not require the agency's officers to employ either of these actions.

So, while the DOJ has policy which excludes warning shots for US military, they were also ordered that they must use both verbal and warning shots as a part of their rules of engagement.

>Calling BS on this story, sorry. No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop

I'm sure if I looked harder I can find many, many more examples. Please do at least the faintest whiff of research before declaring someone else incorrect - full stop.

[fritztastic]

The regulations on the use of deadly force in the military are much more stringent and the escalation has to occur in a specific way to justify the use of deadly force, even when a person is being hostile. In an active war zone, the situation is different but it is a war zone (which is the exception, not the norm)- in most situations for most people trained in the military, the standard way to respond is much more reserved in terms of violence than how a lot of police behave domestically (maybe because of the context of preventing an international incident) and there are very strict rules and serious consequences to using a firearm- at least in most places/situations when servicemembers are issued a firearm.

[Alupis]

I think you might be stretching this a lot... try to drive past the front gate at your local military base and we can see just how reserved their use of force is.

It is true, however, that the military has strict rules for when lethal force are permitted. I'm not sure how that counters anything said here, since LE also has very strict rules.

In hindsight, we can all examine the facts and agree the force used in that situation was unwarranted. But that's the benefit of hindsight.

Regardless, we should not focus on how many rounds were fired. We should instead focus on how the wrong decision was made in the first place.

That is the point of this entire thread. Do not use round count to indicate anything. It just doesn't indicate anything...

[fritztastic]

The active threat of someone intentionally driving through a security checkpoint at a military base is an entirely different context. At the point they're crossing the threshold they've already disregarded very obvious markings, signs, obstacles, and undobtedly commands from the sentries on post. There are a number of scenarios for which there are pre planned responses- deviating from those leaves you facing the UCMJ and you're expected to have a very solid justification for using deadly force.

Shooting at a vehicle not actively causing harm due to a perceived threat because it looks like the vehicle of someone you reasonably expect to be a threat is... well, that's a stretch.

Anecdotally I can say from personal experience there is a lot more restraint being used when guarding people/places relating to national security in place where you can reasonably expect to encounter threats and terrorism than the amount of restraint police here use at civilians domestically.

[heavyset_go]

I live in a residential area outside of a military base. Civilians accidentally drive into the base's properties and roads all the time. The most that happens is that someone in camo tells you that you're trespassing and to not do it again. Speaking from experience.

[vkou]

> since LE also has very strict rules.

Those strict rules boil down to 'whenever you feel threatened.'

If it ever goes to court, the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger. Which is, of course, next-to-impossible.

[Alupis]

> the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger.

Close, but not quite. It's not about what the person was thinking, it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

For what it's worth, this is how it works for civilians too.

The only burden is to convince a jury a reasonable person would also believe there was a threat given the same situation. Reasonable meaning having the same information as the people involved, ie. without the benefit of hindsight or later discovered facts.

[vkou]

> it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

Then why are the seven LAPD officers that shot at the pickup truck during their manhunt for Dorner not serving ten-to-twenty?

Because if me and six of my closest friends shot up a random, non-threatening truck with two women in it, there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't convict us, and there's not a prosecutor in the world who would decline to press charges.

They are only held to the same standards as the rest of us in theory. In practice, the bar is so low, it's practically nonexistant.

[Alupis]

I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

They did not just get together and shoot up a non-threatening truck with two women in it, as you say. That's what we would say in hindsight, given the facts as-discovered after the incident.

The question you should be asking, but didn't, is why the first officer that opened fire is not in trouble for an obvious (in hindsight) wrong call. I would hazard to guess qualified immunity played into that officer's case. Perhaps that is where you should focus.... not on the number of rounds used.

[nkurz]

> No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot".

I'm not sure if you are correct. See this Wikipedia article and search for "warning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country

It looks like several European countries have an established policy of firing warning shots. Denmark at least legally makes them required.

[Alupis]

Perhaps there is some police force that does this, but I'd really like to see how a "warning shot" is defined, because it's incredibly reckless and dangerous to fire a shot at anything, let alone a randomly chosen surface with people around.

The bullet doesn't just stop... and firing at someone that also has a gun is a surefire way to get them to shoot back.

[heavyset_go]

The UN lists warning shots as rules of engagement for some of their activities[1], same thing goes for the DHS[2] so there are obviously people in this world for whom warning shots are standard fare.

Regarding rules of engagement, verbal warnings are sometimes first issued before use of deadly force, for example, by the US in Iraq[3].

[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/Maritime_crime/UNODC_GMCP_Ru...

[2] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/la...

[3] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB140/a93.pdf

[Alupis]

Did you read the sources you linked to?

The first is for Martime incidents, which means you can safely fire into the water (this cannot be done on land).

The second source makes it completely clear "warning shots" are prohibited except for when at sea (martime law again), and under very specific cases while in the air.

The third source explicitly states in all caps, "NO WARNING SHOTS" and says you're to "SHOOT: to remove the threat of death/serious bodily injury...".

Further, all 3 documents provided are for military scenarios, not law enforcement.

I do not understand where any one of these sources supports your argument.

[heavyset_go]

You said:

> No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop.

That is clearly not true, as evidenced by the two sources I supplied.

As for the third source, that has nothing to do with warning shots, but the fact that the military does prioritize things like verbal warnings before engagement.

They clearly write on page 4 "when possible, use the following degrees of force against hostile actors: 1) Shout 2) Shove 3) Show" with "4) Shoot" followed by several caveats.

[Alupis]

How about No Law Enforcement Entity then...?

I'd still argue "no one" applies here because the listed acceptable cases is extremely small and specific to martime or aviation (both cases where other means of verbal communication can be difficult or impossible - as pointed out in both linked sources).

So it is still true, no one land-based is training to fire warning shots. It's just not a thing people do because it, in itself, is extremely dangerous and negligent.

That "warning shot" has to go somewhere... how can you be sure it won't injure or kill someone? How can you make sure the "bad guy" knows it's just a warning shot and not intended to be lethal? A warning shot does nothing but convince the "bad guy" they should return fire...

Lastly, how do we know these LEO's didn't shout warnings at the vehicle? Anecdotally, every police encounter I've seen where force was applied started off with a massive array of verbal warnings. It's part of their training...