Warning shots legal in Fla

13»

Replies

  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    You've adopted the position that presenting a firearm requires firing a firearm. This is a dangerous attitude. The NRA promoted the law allowing warning shots along with pro-gun groups. Since FL already has a Stand Your Ground law, there's no way that a law allowing warning shots CAN morph into a requirement.

    In this case, had the woman killed her ex, she would have been charged (and probably convicted) of murder, since she was convicted of firing a gun in the commission of a crime.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Presenting a firearm does not mandate firing a firearm. And firing a firearm doesn't mean you have to disable someone. As established by FL law. It's a good law resulting from a bad example.

    Barring any other changes, yes, the law does alleviate the mandatory sentence thing. So at first effect, it is a good law. But better would have been to alter the previous law in the first place, eliminating the mandatory penalty and making it so rigid.

    I'm sure that Florida already has other laws that generally cover "reckless or dangerous behavior" sort of actions, and can be easily applied to those who shoot a firearm stupidly, and that might be a misdemeanor or felony, depending. But to have a separate law which specifically mandates sentences of 20 years for discharging a firearm? That's the initial problem and should be corrected by repealing or modifying that law, not necessarily passing a new law to patch an existing one's flaws.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    The problem I see with this etc etc

    cool, this is an excellent commentary and pretty much describes the situation as I see it. Good post!

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    When discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony it draws the sentence. Discourages robbers from shooting, or imposes a sentence if one does. If you're being threatened, you can now fire a gun without killing someone, which is what happened in the FL case.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,104 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    If you're being threatened, you can now fire a gun without killing someone, which is what happened in the FL case.
    I think it actually says now you can fire a gun without intending to hit someone.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    Even in the commission of a felony?
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,104 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Even in the commission of a felony?
    sorry, I screwed up on the editing. I was just commenting on what to do if you're threatened. Nothing more. I will re-edit my quote.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,626 Senior Member
    There's no way I'm reading through 68 comments, so if this has already been covered, I apologize.

    There are situations and scenarios which are dangerous, but have not yet escalated into "life or death." And there will always be people caught in those situations - women, children, the aged or infirm or handicapped - who don't have either "fight or flight" options, who might reasonably and justifiably feel that their safety requires the situation to be calmed, and to accomplish that a firearm may need to be shown, perhaps brandished, possibly presented, aimed, and even fired - not at any person, but in as safe a manner as can be had under the circumstances. I can visualize a warning shot deterring a transgressor and saving his intended victim, without anyone being killed or wounded. Naturally, the law must hold the shooter accountable for the circumstances and the consequences of his shot.

    In traffic control, use is made of every possible level of force - from outright police intervention to red lights, to caution lights, stop, yield and other signs of every description, shape and size, meters, speed limits, lane markers, washboarding at shoulders, speed bumps, traffic calming humps, automatic cameras - you name it, a level of response to every conceivable moving and parking provocation. It's the same with people. Our interactions encompass an infinite range of possibilities from making love to cold-blooded murder and everything in between. To handle all of that, I want every option and every choice, to respond at every possible level of force. A well-placed warning shot, if the circumstances allowed it, might save everybody's day, and all the days to follow as well. It might not, but that's a choice I want to get to make.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,653 Senior Member
    Your logic is sound, horselips, but the lefties who are running this three-ring circus, that pretends to control every segment of every person's life, have had some successes in turning simple logic upside down and using it to bludgeon the logic and ethics that have been guiding reasonable people for centuries. They have taught us that no absurdity can be discounted, because there are sometimes enough hand-wringing morons out there to allow laws to be created that seem to be based on the 'principle' that 2+2=5.

    Reasonable folks have gradually learned to look for the 'hook' in every little bit of good news. :silly:
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,460 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    You've adopted the position that presenting a firearm requires firing a firearm. This is a dangerous attitude. The NRA promoted the law allowing warning shots along with pro-gun groups. Since FL already has a Stand Your Ground law, there's no way that a law allowing warning shots CAN morph into a requirement.

    In this case, had the woman killed her ex, she would have been charged (and probably convicted) of murder, since she was convicted of firing a gun in the commission of a crime.


    No. I've adopted the position that firing a warning shot requires firing the gun. In my opinion, firing a gun for no other reason than to get somebody's attention is a piss poor idea. If the time has come to present your weapon, then the opportunity to persuade your assailant to quit doing whatever it is that is going to get him shot has also passed. Do I require myself to pull the trigger after presentation? No, that would be silly. But, at that point you have received all the warning you're going to get and you've gotten it free of charge. From there on out, the prices get pretty steep.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    No. I've adopted the position that firing a warning shot requires firing the gun. In my opinion, firing a gun for no other reason than to get somebody's attention is a piss poor idea. etc etc.

    cool, this is exactly my reasoning.

    In fact, in ALL of the self defense classes I've had, the instructors have told us to not fire a warning shot nor to attempt anything as ridiculous as try to shoot the attacker in the leg or arm. That's comic book stuff.

    I was clearly taught that if you fire your gun it should be to stop the attacker, period, and if you aren't justified (legally and morally) in potentially killing the attacker, you should not fire in the first place.

    There are numerous scenarios where you might point the gun at the potential attacker and still not fire, and we were trained for those situations. But if you do fire, it should be square at the threat, nothing else.

    Warning shots are a bad idea for many reasons:
    1- The bullet can injure or kill a bystander.
    2- It distracts your aim at the attacker.
    3- It may cause you to further hesitate in a life or death situation.

    I understand the purpose of the new Florida law but the better option would have been to repeal or alter the original law that made the new one necessary.

    That being said, warning shots should never be illegal, as the shooter may act in an okay manner to fire that shot for some purpose. It should be on a case by case basis, whether the shooter engaged in "reckless endangement" by firing that warning shot.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    It may be a piss poor practice in most situations, but in this particular situation, it saved a woman a 20 year mandatory sentence. What was probably worse was the mandatory sentence for firing a shot.

    I'm in favor of any law that expands your rights with firearms. What if you intend to shoot the guy but miss the guy and he runs away? You're left with a round fired and no witnesses, or witnesses who might be hostile, and might be facing 20 years.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • TrueTone911TrueTone911 Senior Member Posts: 6,045 Senior Member
    Heard this explained in a way that made me look at it a little differently. The story was covered on Cam & Co. (last Tuesday I think) and he used a case in Kansas (State v. Flint, 2010 WL 445934 (Kan. App. Jan. 29) as an analogy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene..._b_460850.html

    Basically, to my understanding, it was the same flawed principle that prevented these people from using a self defense claim because no attacker was actually shot. In the Flint case, brandishing his firearm was sufficient to stop the threat but brandishing got him charged with aggravated assault.

    Personally I am still not in favor of an actual "warning" shot. For my HD scenarios, under certain circumstances, an intruder would be given a verbal command and failure to comply would result in shots being fired.

    If lawmakers ever found a way to make a "warning" shot mandatory, my chambered round would likely be a "less" lethal round that could be safely deposited in a wall, quickly followed by "more" lethal rounds that could safely be deposited in the BG's torso.

    I guess in the end, it is all about knowing the existing laws and working within those existing laws to achieve the desired outcome. So now I need to know how all of this would have gone down in CA?
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,653 Senior Member
    I guess in the end, it is all about knowing the existing laws and working within those existing laws to achieve the desired outcome.

    In the end, it's just about surviving. No doubt, 150 years ago when lawmen were scarcer and not necessarily known for their crime solving abilities, a lot of folks just defended themselves and chose to walk away from it, rather than take a chance on incompetent investigators and prejudiced witnesses or juries. All of these prejudiced government actions that are regularly taking place against normal citizens are probably pushing things back in that direction again. In such cases, the police would be deciding about how much effort to expend hunting down a person who was involved in a 'righteous shooting.' Simple 'triage' could be a legitimate excuse for doing so, with the argument being that the police have their hands full just keeping up with the cases that aren't 'mysteries.'

    I expect this to be happening a lot in the future, and honestly, if I lived in a place that was hostile to citizens defending themselves, I would weigh that option heavily.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
  • TrueTone911TrueTone911 Senior Member Posts: 6,045 Senior Member
    Glad it worked out. Glad that bullet did not come down and hurt someone…this time.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,104 Senior Member
    Why do folks shoot into the air? There's lots of ground around...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    Glad it worked out. Glad that bullet did not come down and hurt someone…this time.

    I guess one has to weigh the chances of stopping a stabbing against the chances of a stray bullet coming down and hurting someone. Which is fairly remote, and so far as I know, didn't apply in this situation.

    You have to do what you'd do if faced with that situation. You could shoot the guy, holster your gun and walk away, or fire a warning shot. Two of these choices would have been morally acceptable. This guy chose a warning shot, and I can't fault him for his choice. I just hope you see the reason for the law in FL and TX.

    I think many times us gunowners think only of Personal Self Defense, ignoring the other responsibility of firearms packing. It's what you read in the gun mags, after all. No third party situations that I've read of. If the guy had been stabbing one of us, it would be a different situation, and we wouldn't worry too much (at least on paper) of the rather remote results of a falling round from a missed shot. In Chicago, on the 4th of July weekend, an unacceptable number of people were killed and I don't think any of them were killed by falling bullets.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • TrueTone911TrueTone911 Senior Member Posts: 6,045 Senior Member
    I do see the reason for it and after learning more, like the reason for it. It's a good thing to be able to draw your weapon in a self defense scenario and not be charged with a crime. I think warning shots are dangerous in my environment. My personal choice would be to not use a warning shot.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    Well, if you chose not to fire a warning shot, the other two options are there, maybe more, but I can't think of any. I don't think I'd holster up and turn my back, and I'm not sure I'd shoot the perp, either. I'm assuming from the article he was too far from the action to accurately shoot the guy, and since they were involved and close together, the choices are extremely limited.

    Earlier, I mistakenly implied this law was also in TX. While TX may have a similar law, this occurred in FL.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,855 Senior Member
    There's no way to write the perfect law. Every situation calls for a different action. I live in a Castle Doctrine state. I'm not exactly sure what all the differences between Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are. But, if I fire a shot and the person on the other end isn't hit, who is to say that I just didn't miss? Prove THAT in court. If I see some kids syphoning gas or attempting to from my or my neighbors car, I'm no way going to kill them. But If I shoot and don't hit them, there's no way they can prove I made a warning shot. ON the other had, if I see someone doing something more serious, which could warrant deadly force I think my accuracy can mysteriously immediately improve.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,248 Senior Member
    The way I understand it is the Castle Doctrine applies to defending your home or property. The Stand your Ground doctrine applies to areas outside your home where your safety is endangered.

    I don't see how either of these two applies in the stated situation. It didn't happen on the shooter's property (or his property wasn't violated, the way I read it) and his life wasn't in immediate danger to invoke the Stand Your Ground.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,104 Senior Member
    From my understanding, Stand Your Ground applies Castle Doctrine to away from your home or property and to a place where you have every reasonable right to be. It basically says if you're someplace legal with a gun and someone approaches you, you don't have to retreat to safety.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • TrueTone911TrueTone911 Senior Member Posts: 6,045 Senior Member
    I should point out that my position is from a home defense position only as I do not have a CCW. All of my scenarios take place inside my townhouse where I share common walls with my neighbors. So my view is probably somewhat limited compared to those carrying outside the home.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • rootbrainrootbrain Member Posts: 75 Member
    The scenario goes like this

    Bang!

    Stop or I'll shoot!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.