Bruno2
Member
Feel free to post an actual link to the text. I am not opposed to it.
Florida Legalizes The Warning Shot!
- Thread starter Bruno2
- Start date
- Status
Bruno2
Member
I just did a half dozen searches regarding the new law and before you say "what? Those liberal rags?" the articles included were from publications like The Blaze or Liberty News and they all had "Warning Shots" in the title.
You are Ney saying so bring your proof. I am in the not sure camp and truthfully I was a little offended when you "rejected the premise of the poll". So put it up so we can all see.
You are Ney saying so bring your proof. I am in the not sure camp and truthfully I was a little offended when you "rejected the premise of the poll". So put it up so we can all see.
gamestalker
member
Yes, I think it's a wonderful law.
I've been in more situations that I care to remember, in which brandishing, and also firing a warning shot proved to be very effective in preventing a potentially deadly escalation of violence, and has also resulted in apprehension of the bad guy.
IMO, if a person perpetrates an invasion of my home, or poses a threat to my safety and welfare, and I am confronted by them, I will most definitely be armed. And following contact, they will be held until law enforcement arrives, at gun point. This is my home, anyone who attempts to invade my home, or threaten my safety with implied ill intentions, will either comply with my order, in so many words, to either halt and surrender, or suffer the consequences, in so many words.
GS
I've been in more situations that I care to remember, in which brandishing, and also firing a warning shot proved to be very effective in preventing a potentially deadly escalation of violence, and has also resulted in apprehension of the bad guy.
IMO, if a person perpetrates an invasion of my home, or poses a threat to my safety and welfare, and I am confronted by them, I will most definitely be armed. And following contact, they will be held until law enforcement arrives, at gun point. This is my home, anyone who attempts to invade my home, or threaten my safety with implied ill intentions, will either comply with my order, in so many words, to either halt and surrender, or suffer the consequences, in so many words.
GS
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Not sure why you would take offense at a different opinion (essentially "None of the above").
My point is subtle and requires careful reading but it is crucial. The legislature played a lot of politics here. The title and the statement of legislative intent do use the term "warning shot" but the actual changes to definitions in the criminal code referred to by existing offenses in the criminal codes (the only parts that matter) do not. No criminal court goes to the statutes at large, they go to the criminal codes. In one section of the codes, "defensive display" includes "discharge" and in another it does not. The two definitions are refered to by different existing statutes. In the prior it applies only to situations where the actual use of force is already justified under the law.
That inflamitory article's claims were patently absurd. First of all you absolutley cannot threaten force or shoot indiscriminately. You need the same justification for threatened force as you previously needed for actual force in the law. Second there is no getting off scott free when your actions are not justified. The minimum sentance for aggrivated assault still applies unless the judge makes 4 findings (listed in the link in my previous response). This only applies after you are convicted, only now the judge has some discresion.
Here is the full text of the bill (now law): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...nQHSjHwHqu93CSnQVeRxxHQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.cGU
Mike
My point is subtle and requires careful reading but it is crucial. The legislature played a lot of politics here. The title and the statement of legislative intent do use the term "warning shot" but the actual changes to definitions in the criminal code referred to by existing offenses in the criminal codes (the only parts that matter) do not. No criminal court goes to the statutes at large, they go to the criminal codes. In one section of the codes, "defensive display" includes "discharge" and in another it does not. The two definitions are refered to by different existing statutes. In the prior it applies only to situations where the actual use of force is already justified under the law.
That inflamitory article's claims were patently absurd. First of all you absolutley cannot threaten force or shoot indiscriminately. You need the same justification for threatened force as you previously needed for actual force in the law. Second there is no getting off scott free when your actions are not justified. The minimum sentance for aggrivated assault still applies unless the judge makes 4 findings (listed in the link in my previous response). This only applies after you are convicted, only now the judge has some discresion.
Here is the full text of the bill (now law): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...nQHSjHwHqu93CSnQVeRxxHQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.cGU
Mike
Last edited:
Same here in IL. We can't hold by force. We can 'recommend' the person stay and they can 'choose' to stay but if they get up and flee? You have no legal authority to detain them or give pursuit. And the last thing you ever want to do is shoot at someone who is fleeing; they are no longer a threat.... (Unless they're shooting at you while they're running, then it's OK, I guess.)
As far as the OP, I gave a story, and now I'll give an answer.
No warning shots here.
If the person is a sufficient threat to justify my drawing a gun, and they are still a threat to me by the time my sights are on target (or my muzzle is pointed at them if they are too close to bother with aiming), it's over. I shoot repeatedly, until they are no longer a threat.
USAF_Vet
Member
This is how I feel, too. If the act of brandishing/ drawing my weapon is enough to end the threat, and I don't have to shoot, all for the better, for both of us. The threat isn't going to hospital, and I'm not going to the sheriffs department. If, however, I need to shoot, I'm not firing a warning because it violates at least two rules of gun safety, and it does not ensure the threat is ended. The only thing it does is leave me downloaded by one round (that round may be critical) and potentially endangers others.
I'm glad it protects people from liability, and I doubt bullets will be flying randomly across Florida because of this law (wild west, blood in the streets and fallacious arguments used in the past), so if it saves just one life (
) then I am for it.Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
From a purely tactical perspective a warning shot is almost always a bad idea. Perhapse if the attacker is a loved one and you want to give them every possible oportunity to change their mind . . .
From a legal perspective in situtaions where lethal force is already justified, it is pretty much equivilent to a miss-you still have some amount of responsivility (although shared with your attacker) for where the shot goes.
I suspect this will come up most often in cases where the defender suddenly feels incapable of taking a life.
In the case of Alexander, I think she aimed at her husband's head while he was standing next to her children and simply missed from poor marksmenship. This was after she went to ber car and returned with the gun.
Mike
From a legal perspective in situtaions where lethal force is already justified, it is pretty much equivilent to a miss-you still have some amount of responsivility (although shared with your attacker) for where the shot goes.
I suspect this will come up most often in cases where the defender suddenly feels incapable of taking a life.
In the case of Alexander, I think she aimed at her husband's head while he was standing next to her children and simply missed from poor marksmenship. This was after she went to ber car and returned with the gun.
Mike
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Distorted.....
From what I know, it seems distorted.
Does this mean a W/concealed license holder would need to wave a gun around or fire a shot first? That doesn't seem prudent all the time or practical.
I'm not into scaring people or bluffing. I'd hold a subject at gunpoint if required but I'm not going to draw a gun in public then wait to get shot at or look like a maniac to responding LE.
This new law has merit for some situations but it clearly shows that armed citizens need training in lethal force & the laws.
Rusty
From what I know, it seems distorted.
Does this mean a W/concealed license holder would need to wave a gun around or fire a shot first? That doesn't seem prudent all the time or practical.
I'm not into scaring people or bluffing. I'd hold a subject at gunpoint if required but I'm not going to draw a gun in public then wait to get shot at or look like a maniac to responding LE.
This new law has merit for some situations but it clearly shows that armed citizens need training in lethal force & the laws.
Rusty
Not True
This has been discussed here at length. The bill was passed some months ago. It is now law.
In a nutshell, what the bill does is as follows:
Confusion here is most understandable, particularly in the light of reports such as http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-florida-warningshot-20140620,0,4665832.story.
Because the subject line is not a true statement and is therefore very misleading, and that is not a criticism of the poster, I am closing the thread. Anyone who so desires is free to start a discussion of the law that was signed into law by Gov. Perry.
This has been discussed here at length. The bill was passed some months ago. It is now law.
In a nutshell, what the bill does is as follows:
- Changes provisions in existing law that imposed manadatory penalties for certain acts committed with a gun
- Clarifies in the code the fact that it is (already) lawful to threaten force, including deadly force, when the actor has reason to believe that the use of such force is immediately necessary and lawful
- Changes a part of the law to remove warning shots by persons other than law enforcement officers from actions classified as the use of deadlt force; that does not "leagalize waring shots"
Confusion here is most understandable, particularly in the light of reports such as http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-florida-warningshot-20140620,0,4665832.story.
Because the subject line is not a true statement and is therefore very misleading, and that is not a criticism of the poster, I am closing the thread. Anyone who so desires is free to start a discussion of the law that was signed into law by Gov. Perry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
