Talk:Warning shot

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

"References"

realinstitutoelcano.org
bloomberg.com
sundayherald.com

I think those poor sources should be removed. --Caerbannog (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Shots are Illegal

To my knowledge there is never a time when a warning shot is legal, and yet two separate Wikipedia Articles (Breona Taylor and David McAtee) contain links to this Article and describe the idea of a warning shot as a possible mitigating factor. IMO, the whole notion of a warning shot is patent evidence of bias in both of these Articles, but if the concept is going to be introduced into these Articles, then the Wikipedia Article on "Warning Shots" should at least mention the fact that they are considered illegal, at least some, probably most and possibly all of the time. Else people might get the impression that firing a weapon in the general direction of law enforcement is something legal to do, and when Police inevitably return fire, some kind of "injustice" has taken place. Bottom line, if you even show (brandish) a gun in the presence of law enforcement, there's a good chance you are going to get killed. Aiming the weapon in their direction increases the likelihood of that happening. Firing it in their general direction will absolutely get you killed. This Article creates the illusion that there is some kind of justification for it, and failing to remedy this will get someone killed. Further, I don't believe this is oversite. Wikipedia Editors are not stupid, particularly when it comes to Articles that have a political component to it. Meaning, I'm alleging that failing to include the illegal nature of a "warning shot" in this Article is politically motivated, and done for the purpose of attempting to lend legitimacy to the idea that Law Enforcement kills, usually black people, for little to no reason. However true that may or may not be, that political bias has no place in this Article. Just the facts.68.206.249.124 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]