Florida Legalizes The Warning Shot!

Is Brandishing or Firing warning Shots a Good Thing?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bruno2

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
886
Location
Tulsa , Oklahoma
I just read that FL legalized brandishing or firing warning shots. I am sure this was in response to Marissa Alexander being sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive boyfriend.

What do you guys think? Was it a good law or was it a bad one to pass?
 
Last edited:
I've always questioned the idea of a warning shot or "brandishing" from a tactical standpoint. I certainly question it from a legal standpoint.

If you are in such a situation that lethal force is authorized, i.e. you'd better shoot or you or someone is going to die, why are you not engaging the threat? If that is not the case, you are escalating the situation to lethal force and you are potentially creating a liability with that bullet flying around.

I'm sure there may be an extenuating circumstance that might justify it, but I'm not sure that such a case shouldn't be handled by law enforcement's/prosecution's discretion (or ultimately the jury) and not open it up to everyone doing it. Of course, I'm not the one in jail for firing a warning shot, either...
 
I don't support the prohibition of this per se, seeing as I'm basically an anarchist. However, I am personally against brandishing/warning shots. I'm of the thought process that it's only pulled if it needs to be fired. If for no other reason, it makes you look like the bad guy in the situation. Now, I've never been in a *sticky* situation before, so perhaps my lack of experience is detrimental here... but that's my thought.
 
That is sort of the way I feel Outlaw Man. Don't get me wrong I am totally in favor any laws that relieve us of criminal liability and further our freedoms. However, although I wont say the law should be repealed, I will say that brandishing a gun doesn't do our side any favors.

Like you said when a situation arises that justifies using lethal force. there shouldn't be a free moment to fire a warning shot or show someone your gun. Joe Biden doled out some horrible advice when he said to fire both barrels of a shotgun into the air to ward off intruders. I can see this making our side look like a bunch of clowns after a few people do some careless brandishing in public.
 
I guess we'll have to see, but on the face I think it's a bad idea.

It's hard enough to sort things out in a court of law without a "warning shot" angle thrown in.


I don't expect anybody to know if a shot is a "warning shot" or not. I know I'm going to err on the side of caution, myself. A warning shot may get someone killed.
 
I'm not particularly worried about brandishing and think some states' laws can be ridiculous. There might be times when brandishing can keep a situation from escalating -- I'll leave that call to the person on the scene.

I'm not particularly enamored of warning shots. If the situation is dire enough you need to pull the trigger you probably need to be aiming first.
 
^^^
This, I can agree with. If you pull a gun, you'd better have the determination of using it if the situation escalates to warrant the use of deadly force.
 
Actual firing should only be allowed in the case where you'd be ok hitting them.
 
1.) I wonder if this ought to be in legal.
2.) With regards to "brandishing;" let's say the following occurs. While engaged in some legal everyday activity I am accosted by an individual who very clearly has the intent to do me great harm and there is no question to any observer, or anyone knowing the facts of the case, that my life is in danger.
In responding to this threat I draw my gun. The assailant, surprised that I am armed, turns and runs. Of course now the danger is passed, so I return my weapon to its proper carry position and report the matter to the authorities.
Now, Technically I have "brandished" a gun -- atleast in the sense of "brandishing" meaning "to display." However, have I "brandished" the gun in a legal sense -- ie., have I broken the law that prohibits "brandishing?"
IMHO I should hope not.
OTOH, firing a warning shot is likely a really bad idea. The bullet has to go somewhere and in an event where adrenaline is surging and one tends to get "tunnel vision" it seems reasonable the risk to nearby people might be far too great to allow this. If in a situation where no one was around I imagine maybe it might be more tolerable.
 
Tommy, this has been an issue I have had about armed defense. I am in favor of people wanting to do violent acts upon another person to get "more than they bargained for". It sets an example to other violent criminals.

However, I feel like the way some of the laws are written that they almost encourage a person to bait someone into getting shot. Some states see informing a person you have a gun is the same as brandishing. IOW, you cant warn the person of what they are about to get themselves into. The violent criminal just has to learn about it the hard way.

Take for instance someone crossing the street with a tire iron that spawned from a mishap in traffic. You have the perfect opportunity to produce a gun and have it at your side to deter this hysterical person from carrying out their violent intentions. More than likely they will see the gun and diffuse the situation on their own. Rather than having to wait for the threat to get real enough and close enough to harm you or your family. Then even if you do shoot them no matter how sorry of a human being they are the person may still have children or loved ones that aren't as sorry as the day is long which would be traumatized from the outcome.

I can see it both ways.
 
1.) I wonder if this ought to be in legal.

I would like to keep it on the level of the common man as far as responses go. The lawyers can start their own thread and I am sure they will. I don't lurk or participate over there. Common sense doesn't mix with law. If you don't believe me just look at the SCOTUS ruling on the straw purchase issue.
 
However, I feel like the way some of the laws are written that they almost encourage a person to bait someone into getting shot. Some states see informing a person you have a gun is the same as brandishing. IOW, you cant warn the person of what they are about to get themselves into. The violent criminal just has to learn about it the hard way.

Take for instance someone crossing the street with a tire iron that spawned from a mishap in traffic. You have the perfect opportunity to produce a gun and have it at your side to deter this hysterical person from carrying out their violent intentions. More than likely they will see the gun and diffuse the situation on their own. Rather than having to wait for the threat to get real enough and close enough to harm you or your family. Then even if you do shoot them no matter how sorry of a human being they are the person may still have children or loved ones that aren't as sorry as the day is long which would be traumatized from the outcome.

I can see it both ways.

Bolded the relevant part - I agree with you. SOME situations can definitely be de-escalated once the other person realized "this just got REAL." People who are highly agitated may not even realize that the thing in their hand (tire iron, etc) is a lethal weapon and that approaching someone with the appearance of doing them harm opens them up to being SHOT.

A gun coming in to play is not an improper thing when confronted with potentially lethal force; *I* would draw if I had a big angry man coming at me with an instrument that could cave my skull in. Reason being is if they are within 10 yards I'm easy prey if I don't have my gun in my hand, they can close the remaining distance before I can draw.

But it may NOT be to the point where I'm justified POINTING the gun at him! Not until there is absolutely no question that they are going to strike me with that instrument - they raise it up and charge, etc.

I was involved (and cleared by the police detectives and states attorney) on an incident where I *did* draw and *did* brandish a firearm when I was confronted by a much larger man who was trying to jump the counter in my shop, once. He yelled "I'm going to kill you {expletive}" at one of my employees, and up and over he tried to go. I drew a firearm while backing up - he saw the gun and froze. (The gun was on a shelf under the counter; I grabbed it instinctively while backing up as I didn't want this big fellow between me and my firearm...)

"That's not real" and he started moving again. "Yes it is" as I back up further (now against a wall) - I jacked the slide and a round flew out - he turned a couple shades lighter, and fled - actually bounced himself forcefully off our glass door on the way out...

Shortly after that the cops called me - the guy went to the police station and reported it. Desk sergeant said "we have a man down here who said he threatened one of your employees and you drew a firearm, is that true?" ... "Yes"... detectives come over.

As it turns out if I had *POINTED* the firearm at the man, I would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon - a felony. But I'd held the gun at low ready - and had several witnesses that confirmed this. Never swept him or another human with the muzzle.

Very fine lines we have to navigate in our respective state laws.

I would like to keep it on the level of the common man as far as responses go. The lawyers can start their own thread and I am sure they will. I don't lurk or participate over there. Common sense doesn't mix with law. If you don't believe me just look at the SCOTUS ruling on the straw purchase issue.

Pay attention to those "lawyer types" man, because the difference between going to prison and going home to watch TV are sometimes VERY thin.
 
This is absolutely stupid. If I draw my weapon and the aggressor stops then I hold him there until the police arrive. If I feel threatened to the point that I have to fire a shot firing a warning shot is the last thought on my mind.

If I miss then what? Am I liable for where that shot goes or is it all ok because, hey, warning shot. Shoot to stop the threat, if that means the threat is wounded then so be it. If that means the threat is killed, so be it.
 
I had concerns about this bill until I actually read it. It is not a "warning shot" bill, it does not even mention warning shots.

I was very concerned about the bill's supporters promoting Marrisa Alexander, but It is a good bill. Here in AZ we had a defensive display reform a few years back. Before that you pretty much had to shoot if you cleared leather.

I reject the premise of this poll.

Mike
 
I had concerns about this bill until I actually read it. It is not a "warning shot" bill, it does not even mention warning shots.

I was very concerned about the bill's supporters promoting Marrisa Alexander, but It is a good bill. Here in AZ we had a defensive display reform a few years back. Before that you pretty much had to shoot if you cleared leather.

I reject the premise of this poll.

Mike

From the article I listed in post #3:

The current bill would amend the state's expansive Stand Your Ground law—which permits residents to use deadly force in numerous circumstances—so that it also allows the nebulous "threatened use of force." In effect, it means that gun owners could walk free for brandishing their gun in a threatening manner or firing a shot indiscriminately to "warn" a potential assailant.

That also means gun owners would get blanket immunity from the state's "10-20-life" law, which mandates an automatic 10-year sentence for anyone accused of flashing or using a gun in the commission of a felony. Numerous Florida politicians, including Jeb Bush, have long credited that measure with significantly decreasing the state's gun crimes.

Ironically, the NRA originally lobbied in favor of those mandatory sentencing minimums for gun-brandishing Floridians. In 1999, Hammer stood beside then-Gov. Jeb Bush as he signed "10-20-life" into law. That was part of the pro-gun lobby's longstanding dictum that "we don't need new gun laws, we need to enforce the ones that are already on the books." But in this case, the NRA wants to do away with a gun law that's been on the books for nearly 15 years—a law that it helped pass.
 
I’ve always opposed the “No Brandishing” laws and quite frankly, I definitely don’t trust a LEO or DA to arbitrarily decide yes or no to brandishing.

Twice I have been in a situation where I drew my weapon without firing. In one case on a public sidewalk the threat left without any further action by me. In the other, the offender (A repeat bank robber) was held for the police. I have no idea what any brandishing law may have existed at the time (Late 1960s), but the subject never came up with the responding police.

My conclusion is the display [brandishing] of a weapon can avoid a lethal situation and the potential legal liability that follows. A warning shot, not so much, but a maybe if it’s within the person’s personal residence.
 
From the article I listed in post #3:
If Gawker was an actual paper publication I might have some use for it such as gun cleaning, spray painting, and starting my BBQ grill.

Here is the report on the effects of the bill prepaired by lawyers working for the Florida Legislature: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...entType=Analysis&BillNumber=0089&Session=2014

The bill does a lot of things but the two main ones are waiving the minimum for aggrivated assault convictions resulting from good faith mistakes (no get out of jail free here, just more flexibility for the sentancing judge).

Allows threatened use of force where actual use of force was previously allowed. It does not create any new lesser justifications.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top