Stand Your Ground Reform Introduced in Florida

sound good.....not to sure about the whole "warning shots" thing. If I feel the need to fire its going to be into the bad guy.....

The proposed Florida law goes one step further and allows warning shots to be fired.

Click to expand...

Sheesh. Sure wish there was some way to write this better. I'm very much in favor of not prosecuting folks who fired a shot that missed their attacker, or even who may have lodged one in the ground in an attempt to stop a violent encounter before it becomes fatal.

However...wow does it suck to see this phrased in such a way as to say the law considers a "warning shot" (i.e.: the "Where'd THAT go?" shot) to be part of the lawful force continuum.

I know it is a difficult and problematic thing to introduce nuance into black letter law.

And I sure don't want grandma arrested because she grabbed her late husband's old shotgun and followed Biden's advice (and managed not to hurt anyone)...but it sure does read as a legitimization of a horrendous practice.

For many folks it is quite difficult to read, "These are the things the law allows..." and NOT read, "These are the things the law says you should do."

good point johnny dollar. i view it as an advance in self defense arguments. sound legislation takes time to develop and Florida is doing its part.

And that warning shot is going to come down somewhere. And if the somewhere is a innocent person not near where the crime is occurring does the shoter get immunity?

If a shot must be fired for some reason not into an attacker, it should be into the ground.
At the very least, the bill should make this clear.

Edit: correct, into dirt. Not just the ground.

It seems to me if they just allowed open carry that would make an agressor think twice. They would either run off or you would know you would have to engage. That's my .02

Shooting into the "ground" is not always a good idea, nor is it always safe. Many encounters take place where the victim is on pavement, and shooting into pavement produces great ricochet risk.

I'm sure the warning shot will be like any other. Your going to be repsonsible for where that bullet goes and what it hits.

Correct, and edited. I meant into dirt, but I didn't think to say it.

A "courtesy display", sure.

Not liking for the warning shot though.

At least 'like Johnny said", they're thinking about things to help. I don't know what good or bad it will do, as each case is different. It could backfire in certain conditions, and work well in others, "like everything else". I would enjoy firing a warning shot an inch or two, from a bad guys ear lobe. If there were a solid backstop there to stop the bullet. On the other hand it might ricohet and hit someone, so it's a 50/50 kind of thing. It depends on who's doing the shooting also and how experienced they are. We all know that bouncing rounds off of anything could be a bad thing.
It would get his attention quicklly

The whole concept of warning shots or displaying a weapon is a legal nightmare and likely criminal. Joe Biden is an idiot for suggesting it.

Current Florida law requires a disparity of force before you can use lethal force against an attacker. Things like the attacker is stronger and or armed, the victim is elderly, or a woman, or multiple attackers. If these apply to you as a victim, use your gun like it was intended, and immediately call police.

Florida concealed weapons laws work great. Display of a weapon can be treated like a threat and you can lose your CWL. Anyone who is eligible to own a handgun can get a CWL in Florida. Making it acceptable and legal for people with a CWL and a bad attitude to display guns and fire warning shots in an altercation is only going to give ammo to the anti-gun crowd to use against us.

Florida has very few problems with CWL holders, and any new legislation should be examined for unintended consequences.

Warning shots I'm not too crazy about, but "displaying" your weapon? You bet. How many times have we heard about incidents where the mere display stopped something even worse from happening

Warning Shot? No, sorry. I think this amendment is garbage.

One time, while walking towards to my car in an indoor parking lot a woman displayed her revolver. She percieved me as a threat. I wasn't. This was before cell phones so I didn't contact the police I just got myself out of there as fast as I could. It should have never happened but it could have been worse. She could have shot me.

Zimmerman was wrong in following that kid he would have been wrong if he drew his gun any sooner as a warning. He had no business doing what he did that night anyone here would have percieved Zimmerman a threat if he acted like he did with them.

If a prosecuter percieves a crime has been he should be able to take it to trail. Let the cops be the crime fighters not us.

We aren't (ARE NOT) going to rehash the Zimmerman case again. Let's let that sleeping dog lie.

If this change could somehow simply be a way to loosen up prosecutorial leniency in cases where someone got a tiny bit carried away during a reasonably clear case of a lawful reaction to a threat, that would be ok.

I fear, however, the opposite. "Hey, warning shots and brandishing are legal -- even EXPECTED -- now in FL!" That's bad.

I'm all for defensive display. Arizona has one of the best defensive display laws (recent--our law used to suck in this regard) but it is still a bluff in a force and lot lethal force or many crime prevention situations. That gap is best filled with a baton, pepper spray, or a portable "bug zapper".

Mike

The proposed Florida law goes one step further and allows warning shots to be fired.

Click to expand...

A.K.A. the Biden "Two Blast" Clause.

Last year, a woman who fired a warning shot over the head of her ex, who was in her house in violation of a restraing order, was conviced of assault with a deadly weapon and additional charges because there were children in the house. The prosecutor was Angela Corey, the same one on the Zimmerman case.

Currently, the law allows for people who face an aggressor to be prosecuted if they display their weapon or fire a warning shot without hitting anyone.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the warning shot provision is a way to avoid the possiblity of prosecution for missing?

Joe Biden is an idiot for suggesting it.

Click to expand...

Might I suggest instead . . .

Joe Biden is an idiot and suggested it.

Click to expand...

GCBurner said:

Last year, a woman who fired a warning shot over the head of her ex, who was in her house in violation of a restraing order, was conviced of assault with a deadly weapon and additional charges because there were children in the house.

Click to expand...

Contrast this with the Oregon mall shooting, where the armed citizen withheld fire for fear of hitting innocents beyond his intended target.

It would be a shame if someone were to wait so long to draw their weapon, for fear of "brandishing," that it was to late to save them from an attacker. A potential victim that drives away an attacker by displaying a gun gets all the benefit of being armed, without the legal and emotional downside that follows a defensive shooting. A warning shot, however, is the use of lethal force in a situation where the victim was not in fear of mortal peril. As traumatic as a "good shoot" can be, imagine learning that your "warning shot" injured or killed an innocent bystander. Warning shots are bad tactics and bad policy.

Dean Weingarten said:

Some have argued that if it had been legal for George Zimmerman to show Trayvon Marten that he was armed, that the physical altercation could have been prevented and the Florida teenager might be alive today.

Click to expand...

I do not want to start another Martin vs. Zimmerman debate, but I will note this. From everything I've read and heard, if Zimmerman is to be believed he did not have an opportunity to grab his weapon before he was physically attacked. So I seriously doubt it would have ended differently had this proposed law been on the books.

Why a warning shot is a bad idea legally speaking:

Nothing about a warning shot screams "warning" to everyone else around. A gunshot is a gunshot. Regardless of what you claim to have happened, any witnesses could and likely would say that they saw/heard you shoot at the person. If that person didnt present a threat of death or great bodily harm to you at that moment, the lawyers will try to throw you under a bus.

The discharge of a firearm is considered a act that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A unaimed shot can cause those things. Anytime you try to turn a instrument of deadly force into a non lethal force tool, you are at extreme liability. This is a risk you run having a firearm as your only defense, and it is exactly why police officers have other tools like a baton, pepper spray, taser, and self defense training. Those things are used rather then cops firing "warning shots" to gain compliance. Not to mention a uniformed cop firing a shot is easier for others to recognize, then a person wearing plain clothes firing a "warning shot". Such person could be mistaken as a criminal/active shooter and could be fired upon by others in the area due to mistaken identification (such as the actual perp not having a gun and the warning shot shooter having one.

Say no to warning shots.

It seems OK to me. Just last night I was walking my dog and I turn my head for a second and out of nowhere there is another male dog(60-70 lb) sniffing at my male dog(60 lb). Two unfamiliar males, one a bull terrier and the other a pit bull mix = bad news. I yelled and picked my dog up high as two strong male dogs are not fun to pry apart after one or both don't like each other. I almost grabbed for my gun as it happened so quick and I am not letting a stray dog biting into my dog as I stand 4 feet away but the other dog backed away. If I had to and that dog became aggressive I might have had to shoot it or just put a bullet into the grass where we were walking to send it away. After I got my dog and myself out of there I was realizing that if I did fire one into the ground to scare the dog away, I could have been arrested for that. Now I also could have put it into the stray dog and then I'd be safe or at least not in trouble for firing but why kill a dumb dog for getting loose. This is where a warning shot would should be allowed. I had enough forethought about this situation happening so that all my options where already laid out for me as soon as I seen this stray dog in the corner of me eye. Luckily for this dog, he walked away and didn't show any aggressive behavior after I yelled at him. I would hate to shoot a dog if I had the chance to scare it away as dogs are dogs and can't make the best decisions when they get loose and come upon other dogs.

This should go through as even warning shots would be the responsibility of the gun owner. If you don't have time to think about where you are firing a warning shot, then you shouldn't do so. If you do however have the time to aim at a safe spot and realize you are taking a chance, then they should push this bill through. The allowing of displaying your firearm is a no-brainer. With humans who know what a gun is, seeing you are armed will stop many bad decisions by criminals. "Displaying of firearm" or brandishing are the same exact thing as open carrying and that's what we are ultimately after here. Whether you are open carrying or go from concealed to open, the bad guy knows you mean business either way. Allowing this to go through will just make it easier for a possibility of open carry later. There are countless stories of folks in here and elsewhere where brandishing and stopping a robbery or bad situation has happened. Sure somebody here and there may brandish where it's not warranted as GambJoe said above but it's better for that to happen than the scared gun owner to just pull it out and fire without the option to deescalate a bad situation where all parties walk away alive. This bill is all about the safety of both the gun owner and the (possible)criminal. Let's start at trying to save lives and not argue where a warning shot might end up. Leave that up to the person firing that shot as if they are deemed fit to own and carry, then they should be able to decide whether a brandishing or warning shots are necessary and safe.