Page 1 of 1

Warning Shot.

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:43 am
by tagitables
Police officers when trying to give warning shot, they shot straight up in the air. Is this a good idea?

What goes up must come down.
It won't happen to the officer who shoots, cos when it gets to the top, the wind will change the vertical position of the bullet.

There was an experiment where they fired 500 straight up in the air. Only four landed on the floating platform. The rest splashed. A typical 7.62 mm round fired vertically would reach a height of nearly 2.5 km and it would take 17 seconds to get maximum height. And then, by rough calculation it would take another 40 seconds or so to return to the ground at a speed of about 70 metres per second. So this bullet possibly would penetrate and smash the skull.

Why is this method of policing still allowed?

Re: Warning Shot.

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:30 am
by angle.alpha
Could you please list your sources/references... was the experiment you described from the mythbusters episode "bullets fired straight up?"

Re: Warning Shot.

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:07 am
by angle.alpha
also, i wasnt sure whether or not police are in fact allowed to fire warning shots... so i did a google search, didn't come up with much reliable information but found that "Officers would risk internal disciplinary action by firing warning shots to control an armed offender.
Police tactical orders say a firearm can be drawn only if there is imminent danger to life to police or civilians.
Discharging a firearm can occur only when a life is threatened and when all other tactics have failed. ... Police policy does not allow warning shots to subdue armed offenders."
http://www.news.com.au/police-defy-orde ... public_rss
a similar line was seen at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QuA ... CFcQ6AEwCA