It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
NN wrote: »
We had a discussion not too long ago, most said it was not the thing to do; but, Fla now has to deal with the issue.
tennmike wrote: »
Firing a warning shot is dependent on a lot of things; location, adjacent houses, hard vs. soft surface, and nature of the threat.
Location: What's cool on an isolated farm is really going to present problems in a populated area. Putting a round in soft dirt is sorta O.K., but NOT O.K. on a paved surface.
Adjacent houses, buildings, vehicles: You shot it, you bought it, especially if the bullet hits an innocent bystander.
bisley wrote: »
I would hate to know that I was required by law to take a 'shot across the bow,' while the enemy was training his sights on my 'bridge.'
Bigslug wrote: »
Does the warning shot come before or after you Mozambique them? I keep getting that mixed up.:jester:
Jermanator wrote: »
If I were to take a warning shot, apparently, the situation is not life or death. etc.
NN wrote: »
The point of the law was that if you do you may not have to go to jail for assault provided you do not hit something you should not have.
Some woman did and went to jail.
breamfisher wrote: »
Yes. After she went into her vehicle, got the gun, and came back into the house.
I doubt this law would have kept her out of jail as she went INTO a situation with a gun when she could have continued to egress the situation.
samzhere wrote: »
bream, you're covering two situations combined, which makes it a little confusing.
First, leaving a "danger area" then getting armed and returning (when you could just stay away) removes any sort of need to defend herself. This assumes of course that there weren't other innocents inside the house who were in danger. Returning to a danger zone when you don't have to can put you into legal problems.
Second, it's unclear from what NN said whether this occurred before or after Florida passed their "stand your ground" law, which would serve to mitigate the woman's returning.
The details of the case that NN cites are too sketchy. And I'm confused as well (as I often am). He said:
"The point of the law was that if you do you may not have to go to jail for assault provided you do not hit something you should not have. Some woman did and went to jail."
NN, do you mean "did" means that she hit something w. her warning shot that she should not have? Do you have more info on that to clarify the situation? Thanks.
tubabucknut wrote: »
I am confused by some of the responses about slippery slopes. As I read the Link it makes a warning shot legal, it does not require one. If I can stop an attack with a brandish, or a warning shot, then I want the law on my side. I would agree that it is a very unlikely scenario where it would allow for a warning shot, but why have a problem with them being legal, and why is it a slippery slope?
breamfisher wrote: »
Her kids were in the house at the time, which shows what sort of parent she was when she leaves them in the house to flee.
TrueTone911 wrote: »
How long before the warning shot defense is used by someone who shot, missed and DID hit an unintended target.
Temporary Price Reduction
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.