Warning Shots and Legal Risks: What Experts Say

Attorneys and self-defense instructors have warned that firing a warning shot can lead to significant legal repercussions, even for those who survive the encounter. Recently, there have been two notable cases where armed citizens discharged warning shots. In Benton County, Washington, one individual faced murder charges during an investigation that eventually revealed the shooting was self-defense. Meanwhile, in Franklin County, Missouri, no charges were filed against the armed citizen, although experts caution that advising warning shots is misguided.

Massad Ayoob, president of the Second Amendment Foundation and a ballistics and self-defense expert, explained to the DCNF that warning shots are largely discouraged for civilians. He noted that witnesses can misinterpret the situation, seeing a warning shot as a threat that was acted upon. “A warning shot could be perceived as a murder attempt where the shooter simply missed,” he pointed out. He also highlighted the inherent danger: “When someone fires a warning shot, the bullet has to land somewhere, and that can result in unintended consequences, including harm to innocent bystanders.”

Rob Chadwick, a principal training advisor with the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), echoed these concerns. He emphasized that discharging a firearm without a clear, identified target poses a legal risk. “Firing a warning shot can lead prosecutors to argue that the shooter did not face an imminent threat warranting deadly force,” he remarked.

Attorney Marc Victor, who has handled numerous self-defense cases, described warning shots as “high risk” due to their potential to complicate legal defenses. He indicated that prosecutors often argue that if someone had time to fire a warning shot, then the situation likely wasn’t dangerous enough to justify lethal force. “Using a warning shot can make it seem like you escalated the situation rather than acted in self-defense,” he added.

Even if a bullet does not hit anyone, Victor warned that gun owners could still face charges for reckless endangerment or unlawful discharge, as the law holds them accountable for where their bullets land. “You could find yourself facing serious criminal charges,” he cautioned, especially when innocent bystanders are endangered.

Tom Grieve, an attorney associated with the USCCA, explained that while warning shots might seem to deter an immediate threat, they can lead to severe legal consequences afterward. “In every case we’ve seen involving warning shots, the person faced charges after the danger had passed,” he said, illustrating a troubling cycle of legal fallout stemming from what might have seemed like a prudent choice in a moment of crisis.

Grieve summarized that the ability to use deadly force is strictly reserved for those confronting an immediate threat. He posed a crucial question that prosecutors often ask: if a warning shot was possible, was there truly an imminent deadly threat? “If the warning shot does not stop the threat, the situation could escalate fatally for the shooter,” he noted, emphasizing that individuals may end up with serious charges if they misuse warning shots.

Lastly, Grieve pointed out that assailants often attempt to flip the narrative during police investigations, claiming to be the victims. “Many of these individuals are experienced with the legal system and know how to manipulate their situations to their advantage,” he stated, underscoring the challenges faced by those who find themselves defending against allegations after a confrontation.

Under current federal law, those convicted of offenses that could lead to more than a year in prison or are under indictment for such offenses are barred from possessing firearms.