Warning shots
Firing a warning shot is inherently risky. It sends a dangerous message that using firearms to intimidate or compel compliance is acceptable.
Text size
Firing a warning shot is inherently risky. It sends a dangerous message that using firearms to intimidate or compel compliance is acceptable.
The incident involving Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Mao Aplasca, who admitted to firing the first warning shot to deter National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents during a Senate leadership change last week, is unsettling.
The act of firing a warning shot has ignited a heated debate about safety, responsibility, and the protocols governing law enforcement actions. Aplasca was probably thinking that the NBI agents were trying to enter the Senate by drilling through a door in the GSIS Building.
Having spent years in the field addressing drug-related crimes, I feel compelled to discuss the dangers associated with such reckless behavior. You know, firing a warning shot is inherently risky. It sends a dangerous message that using firearms to intimidate or compel compliance is acceptable. Warning shots are unpredictable by nature and can lead to unintended consequences, including injury and even loss of life.
During my 12 years as a drug enforcement officer, I fired a warning shot during an operation sometime in 2012 while serving as the Regional Director of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. I fired the shot into the ground but nearly hit a fellow agent who unexpectedly moved to his left, almost resulting in an accident.
That triggered panic among our team, forcing everyone to execute cover-and-conceal maneuvers. That moment caused confusion and a breakdown in coordination at a critical time. From that experience alone, I realized how dangerous it can be to fire a warning shot, and I had never done it again.
Firing warning shots can escalate situations rather than diffuse them. Instead of establishing control, they can provoke fear and chaos, leading to further complications and endangering lives. The decision to use a firearm should always be based on a clear understanding of the stakes and the potential consequences.
Law enforcement officials firing a warning shot can be reckless; it sets a poor precedent for junior officers and agents who may interpret it as an endorsement of dangerous tactics. It can undermine the training and principles that law enforcement agencies are supposed to uphold. A culture of safety, discipline, and respect for human life is important in law enforcement, and any deviation from these principles can have long-lasting negative effects.
There are strict protocols on the use of firearms to ensure the safety of all involved, including law enforcement personnel and civilians. The firing of a weapon should only occur in life-threatening situations, and the concept of warning shots should be abolished entirely. Safer alternatives, such as de-escalation techniques and tactical communication, should always be prioritized over the threat of gunfire.
Law enforcement agencies, including the Senate Sergeant at Arms, must engage only in reflective practice and reinforce the importance of safe and responsible conduct. The act of firing a warning shot is not just irresponsible; it is a violation of the trust that the public places in its law enforcement agencies.
(You may send comments and reactions to feedback032020@gmail.com or text 0931-1057135.)
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
