Florida-moves-ahead-with-bill-legalizing-warning shots

[CoalTrain49]

Brandishing a weapon and warning shots are about the same as open carry IMO. That being I have a gun and you know I have a gun. Brandishing or a warning shot would indicate to me that you are not prepared to use the gun. Open carry might also entice someone to try to disarm you.

Brandishing, warning shots, and open carry are not a good idea for self defense purposes. Just because someone knows you have a gun will not always stop an attack. All it does is give your attacker more time and more information about what to expect. What stops an attack is shooting the attacker as quickly as you can. I don't feel it's my obligation to let an attacker know I have a gun. They can contemplate that in the hospital if they're lucky.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh jeez, can we please not make yet another thread into a rehash of the anti-open-carry debate?

Wait, YES WE CAN! DON'T GO OFF-TOPIC INTO OPEN-vs.-CONCEALED IN THIS THREAD! Thanks!

 

[Sam1911]

Having said that, any time you DON'T have to shoot/kill someone, that's a good thing.

If the sight of your weapon convinces someone to turn/stop/run/cease that's a big win. A MUCH bigger win, in fact, than shooting someone.

There's no guarantee that it will work, of course, and no one should draw a firearm with the intent of just brandishing it, but we cannot allow ourselves to discount or disparage the fact that sometimes SEEING that gun halts the bad action we've drawn our gun to deal with.

And remember, whether your intent was to show or to shoot, once the attack has halted, you have no justification for firing a shot. If the assailant stops, drops, flees, or otherwise ceases to present violence, firing on him changes from self-defense to murder.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And let's not forget that in many cases the fight is won by the defender producing the gun and the assailant then deciding to discontinue his attack.

 

[Blackbeard]

And let's not forget that in many cases the fight is won by the defender producing the gun and the assailant then deciding to discontinue his attack.

Exactly. And it's nice to know that this law will protect you from being charged with brandishing because you decided not to shoot.

 

[Mousegun]

So what happens in a clearly personal defense situation (if there even is such a thing) if you do draw and fire but miss and the perp turns and runs? Is that then considered a warning shot? From previous posts, it seems you could be in trouble.

I would probably call the police and maybe even go to the station face to face and explain the situation before the perp possibly beats me to it but even that is a scary proposition.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ No, Mousegun, it's simply a shot that missed. Still, you get your account in to 911 as fast as practically possible. You did, in fact, just try to shoot another person, which is always a felony. You need to justify your actions.

 

[gym]

To those who say "once I decide it's necessary to pull my gun, I am going to use it". That's nonsense, and apparently you never faced down an opponent or opponents who were armed and "may" have had the intent to rob you with a weapon, "real or fake" . You pull your gun with the intent to shoot the guy, as you do this, he throws his gun down and runs away, or just takes off. Are you still going to shoot him? I would hope not. This happens every day in this world of ours, People get hopped up, or drunk, and decide to commit a robbery, maybe they are new at it, of just need a few friends along, or drugs, to give then courage. If the gun comes up or even starts to come my way I would tack him to the wall, but if he drops the gun, "which I have seen", or just freaks out and runs off, are you somehow duty bound to think you may execute them? that's why they probably did what they did in amending the law, also firing a shot in the grass in front of his foot, may give him immediate cause to rethink his bright idea.
If you have a gun pointed in your direction or at you, it's up to you to decide what you do next, do you shoot, give up your cash hoping that's all they want, it's subjective, and different for everyone in every situation, but at least this gives you another alternative to stop something that you "if you are aware" see is going to take place any second.
How many times I have seen someone being closed in on by a pair or trio of jerks who are about to separate them from their belongings, at least you now have the ability to put your hand on your gun, and say look whatever you are thinking isn't going to happen today, walk away, or simply turn around with your gun at your side and make sure they see it. Isn't that better than having to shoot someone that you knew was going to try to rob you?
It's not worth the physical, mental or monetary, strain to shoot another human being unless you have no other choice, it's going to make your life miserable and change it forever if you do have to do this even if justified. You will probably have to move change your phone number take your kids out of school, it's a nightmare. Much easier if you can get out of doing it by showing your hardware or making a warning shot dismiss the threat.
Not for a second am I saying that if you have to shoot then shoot. You will know, that voice inside you will tell you.
If the need for deadly force, ceases when you draw your gun, then it's unlawful to shoot.
You won't know this until your gun is presented.
A couple of our Moderators discuss that here,http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=731200.

 

[Red Wind]

^ A lot oi thought provoking scenarios in your post,Gym. It reminds me again that carrying a gun every single day is a huge responsibility.

Sometimes, I believe I get too blaise' and forget that in one moment, my life can end or change forever, because of carrying that firearm.

So, constant vigilance and common sense is key. Easier to say than do. However, we have to give it our utmost attention. Making the wrong decision and landing behind bars, means a lifetime of regret for you and yours.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons of this proposed legislation because I'm opposed to it. I probably will never understand how brandishing or firing a weapon in the general direction of someone you believe is a threat will give you an advantage. Yes, I read the link. Personally I think there is unseen potential liability for the first person to display intent (drawn weapon) or actually firing a weapon.

I would like to point out that in many states what we are discussing is illegal and people should be aware of that.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230

But if folks in FL feel that is an improvement I say they need to change the law.

 

[jbrown50]

Having said that, any time you DON'T have to shoot/kill someone, that's a good thing.

If the sight of your weapon convinces someone to turn/stop/run/cease that's a big win. A MUCH bigger win, in fact, than shooting someone.

There's no guarantee that it will work, of course, and no one should draw a firearm with the intent of just brandishing it, but we cannot allow ourselves to discount or disparage the fact that sometimes SEEING that gun halts the bad action we've drawn our gun to deal with.

And remember, whether your intent was to show or to shoot, once the attack has halted, you have no justification for firing a shot. If the assailant stops, drops, flees, or otherwise ceases to present violence, firing on him changes from self-defense to murder.

And let's not forget that in many cases the fight is won by the defender producing the gun and the assailant then deciding to discontinue his attack.

Exactly. And it's nice to know that this law will protect you from being charged with brandishing because you decided not to shoot.

Yes.......Thankyou!
I've experienced two instances where the mere presentation of my firearm, with the intent to use it, made the obvious assailants promptly turn and head quickly in the opposite direction. I was extremely thankful that I didn't have to use it, but I clearly intended to use it.

I called the police and reported the incidents and the descriptions of the assailants but I can guarantee you that these two self defense actions, and many others like them, didn't show up in any FBI stats.

 

[BryanDavis]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/09/florida-moves-ahead-with-bill-legalizing-warning-shots/
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida legislators are pushing ahead with a bill designed to make it clear people can show a gun, or even fire a warning shot, without drawing a lengthy prison sentence.
A Senate committee on Wednesday voted in favor of the bill (SB 488) while a similar version has already moved (HB 89) through a House committee.

The bill would grant the same protections already in place under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to people who only threaten to use force


Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/24405429/warning-shot-bill-moving-ahead#ixzz2wzIEOC5J

Awesome. What chance does this bill have of passing?

Seems like Florida continues to churn out good 2nd Amendment ideas. Now if only we could line up a pro-gun majority at the federal level with control of the white house, senate and house then we could get some of our longstanding grievances like nation-wide CCW reciprocity addressed. Not to mention a rollback of the 1968 Gun Control Act and 1934 National Firearms Act.

Keep us updated.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons of this proposed legislation because I'm opposed to it. I probably will never understand how brandishing or firing a weapon in the general direction of someone you believe is a threat will give you an advantage. Yes, I read the link. Personally I think there is unseen potential liability for the first person to display intent (drawn weapon) or actually firing a weapon....

Then it looks like you don't understand the proposed changes to Florida law and the purposes of those changes.

Nothing in the Florida law, with the proposed amendments, would authorize unjustified display of a gun nor the wild firing of the gun. The point is that a person can reasonably conclude that he is at risk of an immediate, potentially lethal attack and justifiably draw his gun, thus threatening the use of lethal force against his assailant. He might, however, not need to fire the gun because his threat is sufficient to cause his assailant to stop his attack.

The changes proposed to Florida law properly clarify that a threat to use lethal force under those circumstances is justified. In reality, in most successful defensive gun uses the defender does not need to fire his gun.

The full text of the bill proposed in Florida may be found here. And again a detailed discussion of the defensive display of a gun may be found here.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Here is my problem with how this is all happening.

The political motivation behind moving this bill forward at this time was the Marissa Alexander case. From what I understand, she was in a domestic dispute, went to her car/garage to get her gun, then returned to the house at which point a shot is fired.

The problem is, that case is NOT a display of responsible gun use, it is exactly the kind of situation CoalTrain described, one person pulls a gun as a "warning," other person percieves threat, bad things happen.

if this law is passed in response to a case like this, correct or not, ppl, will think this law was intended to justify her actions. I don't think the law would, but if it passes don't be surprised to see a lot more people firing irresponsible "warning shots."

Just like SYG, there is a good theory behind the law, but the way it is being implemented is likely to produce results that don't match the theory.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The political motivation behind moving this bill forward at this time was the Marissa Alexander case. From what I understand, she was in a domestic dispute, went to her car/garage to get her gun, then returned to the house at which point a shot is fired...

First, what makes you think that's what's behind the law? Second, why do you, or should anyone else, think these changes would have made a difference in Alexander?

She was visiting someone's home, believed herself to be threatened by the person whose home it was, and left. At that point she was no longer at risk. She then returned with a gun to confront the person she believed had previously constituted the threat.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Then it looks like you don't understand the proposed changes to Florida law and the purposes of those changes.

You could be right.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Frank Ettin: Nothing in the Florida law, with the proposed amendments, would authorize unjustified display of a gun nor the wild firing of the gun. The point is that a person can reasonably conclude that he is at risk of an immediate, potentially lethal attack and justifiably draw his gun, thus threatening the use of lethal force against his assailant. He might, however, not need to fire the gun because his threat is sufficient to cause his assailant to stop his attack.

Correct, and from that standpoint, the amendments change nothing.

The amendments, as currently drafted in the Senate bill, provide that a threat of deadly force would be lawfully justified--when and only when the actual use of deadly force would be lawfully justified.

One more time: a threat of deadly force would be lawfully justified when and only when the actual use of deadly force would be lawfully justified.

Regarding "warning shots", the amendments change the definition of deadly force, for persons other than law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, to exclude the firing of shots not intended to kill or injure, but they do not justify firing any shot except in an instance in which willfully shooting an attacker would be lawfully justified.

Put another way, the amendments do not permit "brandishing or firing a weapon in the general direction of someone you believe is a threat".

Under existing law, one may lawfully shoot, strike, or stab someone if that person has a basis for a reasonable belief that it would be necessary to do so to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. The amendments place the same threshold of justification on pulling a gun. And that is not a change.

The changes proposed to Florida law properly clarify that a threat to use lethal force under those circumstances is justified. In reality, in most successful defensive gun uses the defender does not need to fire his gun.

Right. "Properly clarify" are the operative words.

This one has joined "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" among the most misleadingly described subjects in recent media history.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

First, what makes you think that's what's behind the law? Second, why do you, or should anyone else, think these changes would have made a difference in Alexander?

She was visiting someone's home, believed herself to be threatened by the person whose home it was, and left. At that point she was no longer at risk. She then returned with a gun to confront the person she believed had previously constituted the threat.

Frank, I live in Florida, any time anyone talks about this law it is in reference to the Alexander case.


There are actually two parts to the changes. The second is to weaken the mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with firearms. Florida bought into the "tougher sentences for firearm crimes will reduce firearm crimes" idea and enacted mandatory sentencing guidelines (referred to as 10-20-life). Judges have no discretion and "warning shot" cases are resulting in 20 year sentences. Judges would tell ppl "sorry, I don't think you deserve this sentence but I have no choice" before sending them away for twenty years. This legislation weakens those laws and gives judges more discretion in sentencing firearm cases.

This is the part that would really have impacted the Alexander case, big part of the uproar was that she was getting 20 years for her actions, this would allow a judge to sentence differently.

 

[shockwave]

As a Fla. resident, I'll concur that this is a correction to the law in response to Alexander. The way "Stand Your Ground" is set up now, shooting and/or killing an assailant can be done legally provided you have justification. Brandishing or firing a warning shot can send you to prison.

Obviously, we want the law constructed so that there is no incentive to fire in the event shooting becomes unnecessary (e.g., the attacker desists, flees); on the contrary, the law should encourage deescalation of force if possible.

Yes, we know that Alexander is complicated and doesn't fit this scenario. Nevertheless, the case did raise this issue and pointed out the flaw in the law as it currently stands.

Remember that the law is broader than just a threat to you personally. You are legally allowed to use force to protect another person from imminent harm. So, for example, if you see one person about to gravely injure another, you are allowed to intervene.

In such a case, you might not have a clear shot at the attacker and a warning shot might be sufficient to dissuade him or her from further combatives. Other scenarios can be envisioned. This is a proper adjustment to Stand Your Ground and worthwhile. As it doesn't relax the prohibition of brandishing per se, there should be no problem with it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I live in Florida, any time anyone talks about this law it is in reference to the Alexander case....

Who is "everybody"? The governor and state legislators, or the guys at Starbucks?

...There are actually two parts to the changes. The second is to weaken the mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with firearms. ...

This is the part that would really have impacted the Alexander case, big part of the uproar was that she was getting 20 years for her actions, this would allow a judge to sentence differently...

And that is a completely different issue.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Pizzapinochle: There are actually two parts to the changes. The second is to weaken the mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with firearms. Florida bought into the "tougher sentences for firearm crimes will reduce firearm crimes" idea and enacted mandatory sentencing guidelines (referred to as 10-20-life). Judges have no discretion and "warning shot" cases are resulting in 20 year sentences. Judges would tell ppl "sorry, I don't think you deserve this sentence but I have no choice" before sending them away for twenty years. This legislation weakens those laws and gives judges more discretion in sentencing firearm cases.

I'm afraid I do not see that anywhere in the Senate bill. Perhaps you can help me with that.

The way I read it, the "10-20-Life" statute, which dictates mandatory penalties for crimes committed with firearms, would be amended to eliminate the mandatory penalty if the use of deadly force would be justified under Code Section 776.

Common sense would tell us that that amendment should not be required; Floridians have been getting along for years without being convicted for not having fired guns when conditions have changed after the presentation of the guns.

The legislature does assert, however, that some persons have been convicted and sentenced for threatening deadly force in cases in which the actual use of deadly force would have been awfully justified. That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps someone can cite specific examples. In any event, that too is a simple and obvious clarification.

The bill also requires documentation of findings that the threat of force was justified under 776.

Whether the penalty for firing a "warning shot" when it is found that lawful justification did not exist would be changed by the change in the definition of deadly force is not clear and remains to be seen.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Who is "everybody"? The governor and state legislators, or the guys at Starbucks?

.

Pretty sure the state senator who sponsored the bill cited alexander case, i'd have to look around for cites. Believe the name was nick combie, but not 100% sure. Google nick combie marissa alexander an you should get some results.

Kleanbore, i think there may be two bills moving together? Just listened to a radio report on it and they spent equal time talking about both parts of the bill, so it is somewhere.

 

[hso]

New:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
He or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

I don't see that the firing of a warning shot is automatically protected. Fire the shot in the safe direction, maybe. Injure an innocent bystander or even damage someone's property, no protection.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Got the name wrong, Neil Combee.


“The reason I got interested in this was not because I wanted to do anything with “stand your ground,’” said Rep. Neil Combee, R-Auburndale, the bill’s sponsor. “I didn’t want to repeal “stand your ground.” I didn’t want to strengthen “stand your ground.”
“‘Stand your ground’ was not on my mind. Marissa Alexander was on my mind.”

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/03/20/house-passes-warning-shot-bill/

So yeah, the bill was in response to the Marissa Alexander case, at least according to the bill's sponsor in the legislature.

On the 10-20-life changes...

The way I heard it explaned was that if someone fires a shot and the jury rules it was NOT legal/justified, the old sentencing guidelines gave a mandatory sentence, judge has no discretion.

New guidelines would be that if the JUDGE felt that the shots, while not LEGAL, were fired based on a legitimate belief of a right to fire a warning shot, then different sentencing guidelines that are more lenient could be applied.

I'll try to find the radio broadcast that was discussing the changes or something else, I don't have all the details in my head.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Back in the 1700s, the Irish Code Duello which was adopted by the Americans, forbade delopement (firing a shot into the air or ground.) The reason was that means of apologizing produced so many crippled seconds and bystanders.