The Dangers of Warning Shots in Church Security

Why warning shots are a bad idea (#1, it's considered deadly force)

Importance of Effective Security in Churches

In recent years, the need for effective security in churches has become increasingly apparent. Churches are meant to be places of worship, peace, and community, but they are not immune to threats. Ensuring the safety of congregants during services and events is paramount. Church security teams play a crucial role in maintaining a secure environment, preventing incidents, and responding swiftly to any potential threats. The presence of a dedicated and well-trained security team can make a significant difference in protecting the congregation and allowing them to worship without fear.

---

---

Focus on the Use of Warning Shots

One security tactic that often comes under debate is the use of warning shots. A warning shot is a discharge of a firearm intended to compel compliance from an individual, without the intention of causing physical injury. In theory, it aims to deter a potential threat through intimidation rather than direct harm. However, the practical application of warning shots raises numerous concerns, particularly regarding their effectiveness and the significant risks they pose.

This article will explore the concept of warning shots, examining their intended purpose and the surrounding debate. We will jump into lessons learned from law enforcement regarding the use of warning shots, highlighting why they are generally prohibited and the potential consequences of their use. Furthermore, we will apply these lessons to the context of church security, demonstrating why warning shots are a bad idea and suggesting safer, more effective alternatives for protecting congregants.

Understanding Warning Shots

Definition and Intended Purpose

A warning shot is defined as a discharge of a firearm aimed to compel compliance from an individual without causing physical injury. The theory behind warning shots is to use the noise and visual impact of the shot to deter a potential threat, ideally causing the suspect to surrender or flee without further escalation. In high-stress situations, such as a security breach at a church, the idea might be to prevent violence without immediate lethal force.

---

Watch My Breakdown of a Recent Warning Shot Done by a Church Worker

---

Historical Context and Law Enforcement Practices

Historically, warning shots were more commonly accepted in law enforcement. However, over time, numerous studies and real-world incidents have led to a shift in this practice. For instance, in New York City during the early 1970s, administrative guidelines significantly restricted the use of warning shots following several problematic incidents and legal challenges. Research, including the works by Fyfe (1979) and the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force (2017), has consistently shown that warning shots often lead to unintended consequences, including accidental injuries or deaths.

Law enforcement agencies across the United States have largely prohibited the use of warning shots due to these inherent risks. Policies and training emphasize de-escalation techniques and the use of force continuum, which prioritizes other methods over the discharge of a firearm, whether warning or otherwise.

Risks and Consequences of Warning Shots

1. Unintended Injury or Death: One of the primary risks associated with warning shots is the potential for unintended injury or death. A shot fired into the air or at the ground can ricochet or stray, hitting an innocent bystander or causing property damage. The trajectory of a bullet can be unpredictable, especially in high-stress situations.

2. Legal and Liability Issues: The use of warning shots can lead to significant legal repercussions. If a warning shot injures or kills someone, the individual who fired the shot, as well as the organization they represent, can be held liable. This not only involves criminal charges but also civil lawsuits, which can be financially devastating and harm the reputation of the church.

3. Escalation of Violence: Instead of de-escalating a situation, a warning shot can sometimes escalate it. The sound of gunfire can incite panic among congregants and escalate the aggressor’s response, potentially turning a controlled situation into chaos.

4. Ineffectiveness: There is also the risk that a warning shot will not have the intended effect. An assailant determined to cause harm may not be deterred by a warning shot, rendering the action ineffective and leaving the security team with fewer options.

In summary, the use of warning shots presents significant risks that outweigh the potential benefits. The next sections will examine lessons learned from law enforcement experiences and apply them to the context of church security, providing safer and more effective alternatives for protecting congregants.

Lessons from Law Enforcement: The Case Against Warning Shots

New York City Police Department's Experience

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) provides a notable case study in the shift away from the use of warning shots. In 1972, the NYPD implemented Temporary Operating Procedure 237 (T.O.P. 237), significantly restricting officer shooting discretion and explicitly prohibiting warning shots. This policy change followed numerous incidents where warning shots had resulted in unintended injuries and deaths, raising public concern and legal challenges.

Research by Fyfe (1979) demonstrated that the implementation of T.O.P. 237 led to a substantial decrease in the frequency of police shootings, particularly those involving warning shots. The data showed that officers were able to manage threats effectively without resorting to potentially hazardous warning shots, thereby reducing the risk of collateral damage and legal repercussions.

National Consensus Policy on Use of Force

The National Consensus Policy on Use of Force, developed collaboratively by major law enforcement organizations, reinforces the NYPD's approach. This policy emphasizes that warning shots are inherently dangerous and should only be considered when deadly force is justified and when they are believed to reduce the likelihood of needing to use deadly force. Even then, strict guidelines must be followed to minimize the risks.

The policy reflects a broad consensus that the use of warning shots should be extremely limited, if not entirely prohibited, due to the significant risks involved. This stance is based on decades of law enforcement experience and research indicating that warning shots often lead to more harm than good.

Specific Incidents Illustrating the Risks

Several high-profile incidents further highlight the dangers associated with warning shots:

1. Charleston County, South Carolina: In 2022, Deputy Hank Carter of the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office fired a warning shot during a pursuit of suspects. While the warning shot successfully compelled the suspects to surrender, the incident raised significant concerns about the potential for accidental harm. The sheriff's office acknowledged that warning shots are inherently risky and must be used with extreme caution.

2. Historical Examples: Prior to the widespread prohibition of warning shots, numerous cases resulted in tragic outcomes. For instance, warning shots fired in crowded areas led to bystander injuries and even deaths, prompting legal actions and public outcry.

Implications for Church Security

The experiences of law enforcement agencies clearly illustrate the dangers of warning shots and the reasons for their prohibition. For church security teams, the implications are clear:

• Avoiding Warning Shots: Church security personnel should avoid the use of warning shots due to the significant risks involved. Instead, focus on alternative methods of threat management that prioritize de-escalation and non-lethal interventions.

• Training and Policies: Establish clear policies that prohibit warning shots and provide comprehensive training for security personnel on effective threat management techniques. This includes situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, and appropriate use of force.

• Legal Considerations: Be aware of the legal ramifications of using warning shots. Ensure that all actions taken by security personnel are within the bounds of the law and prioritize the safety of all congregants and bystanders.

In the next section, we will explore safer and more effective alternatives to warning shots, tailored to the specific needs and context of church security.

Legal Considerations and Supreme Court Rulings on Warning Shots

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Tennessee v. Garner is a pivotal Supreme Court case that provides crucial insights for church security teams regarding the use of deadly force, including warning shots. The case involved the shooting of Edward Garner, a 15-year-old suspect fleeing a burglary. The police officer, adhering to a Tennessee statute, used deadly force to prevent Garner's escape, resulting in Garner's death. The Supreme Court ruled that using deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect who poses no immediate threat is unconstitutional. This decision underscores that deadly force, including warning shots, must be strictly justified by an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

For church security teams, this ruling implies that firing a warning shot, which inherently involves discharging a firearm, must meet the stringent criteria established by the Court. Warning shots can escalate a situation and pose risks to bystanders, making them inadvisable unless the suspect poses a significant threat. This case highlights the need for security teams to prioritize de-escalation and use deadly force, including warning shots, only as a last resort when there is a clear, immediate danger.

Graham v. Connor (1989)

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Connor further refined the standards for using force, including warning shots, by establishing the "objective reasonableness" standard. This case arose when Dethorne Graham, a diabetic man experiencing a medical emergency, was forcibly detained by police. Graham later sued, claiming excessive force. The Court ruled that the reasonableness of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of the circumstances.

Applying this to church security, the decision underscores that any use of force, including firing warning shots, must be objectively reasonable. Church security personnel must assess the immediate threat, the severity of the situation, and the potential risks to others before deciding to use a firearm. Warning shots, by their nature, can be unpredictable and dangerous, and thus their use must be justified by a clear, immediate threat.

These rulings collectively emphasize the critical importance of restraint and careful judgment in the use of warning shots within church security contexts. Security teams should be thoroughly trained in de-escalation techniques and understand the legal implications of using any form of deadly force, ensuring that it is only employed when absolutely necessary to protect lives.

Safer Alternatives for Church Security

Effective church security can be achieved by prioritizing safer alternatives to warning shots. One of the most crucial approaches is de-escalation techniques, which involve the use of verbal commands and negotiation to manage potential threats. Security personnel should be trained to use clear and authoritative verbal commands to calm individuals and negotiate peaceful resolutions. Additionally, non-verbal communication, such as maintaining a non-threatening posture, making eye contact, and using open-handed gestures, can play a significant role in diffusing tension.

Non-lethal force options provide another layer of safety. Tools like pepper spray and Tasers can incapacitate a threat without causing permanent injury, allowing security personnel to maintain a safe distance from the aggressor. In situations where close contact is unavoidable, physical restraints can be employed to subdue a threat safely. Proper training in these techniques ensures that security personnel can hold or immobilize an individual until law enforcement arrives.

Collaboration with local law enforcement is essential for enhancing the effectiveness of church security. Regular coordination and joint training sessions can prepare security teams to handle various scenarios effectively. Developing and updating emergency response plans that include clear protocols for contacting and cooperating with law enforcement during an incident is also crucial.

Environmental design and technology play a pivotal role in church security. Installing high-quality surveillance cameras can deter potential threats and provide valuable evidence if an incident occurs. Training security personnel to monitor and respond to surveillance footage is essential for effective threat management. Implementing access control measures, such as locked doors and controlled entry points, can help prevent unauthorized individuals from entering the church premises, further enhancing security.

Summary and Recommendations

Warning shots pose significant risks, including unintended injury or death, legal liabilities, escalation of violence, and ineffectiveness in deterring determined threats. Historical data and policies from law enforcement agencies illustrate these dangers and the benefits of prohibiting their use. Instead, effective threat management in a church security context can be achieved through de-escalation techniques, non-lethal force options, collaboration with law enforcement, and environmental design and technology.

To ensure the safety of congregants, church security teams should establish clear policies that prohibit the use of warning shots. Comprehensive training on de-escalation techniques, non-lethal force options, and emergency response protocols is essential. Fostering strong relationships with local law enforcement and regularly coordinating training and emergency response plans can further enhance security. Additionally, investing in surveillance systems, access control measures, and other technologies that deter potential threats will help create a secure environment for church activities.

By implementing these recommendations, church security teams can protect their congregants effectively while adhering to best practices and minimizing risks associated with warning shots.

Conclusion

The use of warning shots by church security teams is fraught with significant risks and potential legal liabilities. As demonstrated by historical precedents in law enforcement, the dangers and unintended consequences of warning shots outweigh any perceived benefits. Church security personnel must prioritize safer, more effective alternatives such as de-escalation techniques, non-lethal force options, and thorough training in handling various threat scenarios.

By adopting these strategies, churches can ensure the safety and security of their congregants without resorting to potentially harmful and legally precarious actions. It is essential for church security teams to stay informed and continuously train in best practices to create a secure environment where worshipers can feel safe and protected.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS | FAQ

Q: What are the risks associated with warning shots in church security?

A: Warning shots can pose an imminent danger as they may ricochet unpredictably or injure unintended targets, leading to serious injury or death.

Q: Can warning shots be considered a form of deadly force?

A: Yes, warning shots fall under the category of deadly force and should only be used in situations where there is a clear and immediate threat to life.

Q: How does the use of force differ from the concept of de-escalation?

A: The use of force refers to the application of physical or lethal tactics, whereas de-escalation involves techniques to peacefully resolve a situation without resorting to force.

Q: Are warning shots advisable when dealing with a moving vehicle?

A: No, warning shots should not be fired at a moving vehicle as it may increase the risk of harm to innocent bystanders and escalate the situation further.

Q: What should a security personnel do if they believe someone poses an imminent threat?

A: If security personnel reasonably believe that an individual poses an imminent threat, they should follow established protocols for using necessary force to neutralize the threat without resorting to warning shots.

Q: Are warning shots approved by police departments or law enforcement agencies?

A: Warning shots are generally discouraged by police departments and law enforcement agencies as they can have unintended and fatal consequences, and violate established use-of-force protocols.

Q: Is there any official stance on warning shots from the Department of Justice or relevant law enforcement organizations?

A: The Department of Justice, along with associations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), forbids the use of warning shots due to their inherent risks and potential for serious harm.

Q: How can the risk of using warning shots in church security be reduced?

A: Security personnel should receive proper training on de-escalation techniques and non-lethal methods of intervention to minimize the need for warning shots and ensure the safety of all involved.