POLICE WARNING SHOTS OK … OR NOT

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

By Kevin Johnson

USA Today
October 25, 2017

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

Varrone's assessment was effectively endorsed by hundreds of law enforcement colleagues who, when asked whether they supported such a policy, sat silent during the discussion sponsored by the Police Executive Research Forum, a D.C.-based law enforcement think tank.

"We have had enough people killed or injured as bystanders over the years by errant gunfire without endorsing a strategy like this for police," said Darrel Stephens, the outgoing executive director of the Major City Chiefs Association, which represents the 59 largest police departments in the United States.

Stephens said his group declined to "sign off" on the policy earlier this year, largely because of the provision allowing for warning shots.

"Our position is: where do the bullets go? It's as simple as that," Stephens said. "Warning shots only put other people at risk and (the strategy) may only invite return gunfire from the source of the problem you are trying to stop."

Terrence Cunningham, the IACP's deputy executive director, acknowledged the charged nature of the provision but believed it should be included "for the most extreme situations."

"We strongly discourage it," Cunningham said, "but if you absolutely found yourself in a position where it could serve to de-escalate a situation then we should leave it to the determination of the officer on the street."

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, another of 11 law enforcement groups that collaborated on the policy, said the policy was promulgated during the course of the past year as law enforcement has sought ways to avoid fatal encounters in the communities they serve following a series of tragedies that sparked unrest in places like Ferguson, Mo., Cleveland, Baltimore and New York.

"We believe in exhausting all possibilities when trying to reduce tensions," Pasco said. "It (warning shots) is only included as a suggestion, anyway. We were responding to the growing drumbeat about the use of force around the country."

Pasco acknowledged that warning shots may not be feasible in many cases, but he believes there are instances when officers could benefit from such an option.

"When you have someone coming at you with a knife from 20 feet away, that could be a time when you use something like that," he said. "If it gets to five feet, then you are probably going to have to shoot him."

Of the criticisms raised by other police groups regarding the policy, Pasco said: "You could nit-pick any kind of document like this. This is a statement of best practices."

The policy is not binding on any law enforcement agency, as departments adopt their own guidelines on the use of deadly force. But some officials said the warning-shot option could dangerously cloud officers' responses to the most difficult question they face on the job: when to shoot?

For that reason and for the safety of third parties, Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, said warning shots--as an option for officers--have been banned by most department for decades.

"There has never been any real discussion at all in terms of change," Wexler said. "It's been an established policy for the better part of 40 years that warning shots are prohibited."

Stephen Davis, deputy police commissioner for the New York Police Department, said extreme density in cities like New York are strong arguments against such a policy.

"When you fire a shot, that bullet has to come down somewhere," Davis said. "The downside of policy like this greatly outweighs any benefit, especially in New York."

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, my agency in California, had a strict policy back in the 50s and 60s that no warning shots can be fired. The no warning shot policy was initiated by Sheriff Joe Rice, a former FBI agent. He was concerned that what goes up must come down … somewhere!

I believe that often when an officer claims he fired a warning shot, he actually intended to shoot a suspect dead, but missed and was too embarrassed to admit he couldn’t hit the side of a barn.