So you in your opinion it's better to shoot to kill a person than to give a fair warning that they mean business, where there is a slight, near non-existent, chance of bystanders getting hurt or killed.
I would agree with you if they were using high powered rifles with armour piercing rounds, but most shots fired by police are from hand guns.
When I was enlisted we were trained to fire warningshots in the ground or something hard in near proximity of the target. This way you knew that your bullet would land within a visible area that you would be able to make sure was reasonably safe.
In my opinion a gun is a measure of last resort, to only be used when nothing else is possible.
A gun is a lethal weapon, and it is used to kill. When a gun is used the shooter has to be thinking that someone needs to be killed.
"Warning shots" carry the risk of injuring / killing innocent people. They also carry a risk of injuring / killing the criminal. That risk is unacceptable.
Warning shots mean that guns are used before they absolutely have to be used. But if warning shots are needed why not have one officer armed with a blank-firing pistol?
I disagree, as a warningshot is usually followed with lethal shots within seconds. You basically give them one last chance, if the circumstances allow for it (!), to lay down the weapon.
I would agree with you if they were using high powered rifles with armour piercing rounds, but most shots fired by police are from hand guns.
When I was enlisted we were trained to fire warningshots in the ground or something hard in near proximity of the target. This way you knew that your bullet would land within a visible area that you would be able to make sure was reasonably safe.