Warning Shot

[muzzlebrake]

Thanks for the clarification. You've changed my opinion of it.

Mine too. Thanks
I some how felt that maybe there would be some good argument or sound reason behind this but my initial gut feeling was that this was a free ticket to some looney tune going around shooting holes in the ground.
Now that we know the full context it takes on a whole different meaning.

[Playa]

Great law.

This law mirrors TX law and was basically an oversight in FL law.

It is not a warning shot law and the words "warning shot" do not appear in the bill. Just like TX law says nothing about the "Castle Doctrine" but it is often cited as "the law". The warning shots are discussions by some people trying to figure out scenarios.

What the law does do is take the existing self defense law and make it more reasonable. TX law states this under self defense:
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

The mere threat of deadly force is not the same as deadly force if it meant simply to scare the potential attacker away or to stop the attack. FL law had no such provision and only talked about the lawful "use of deadly force" but not the threat of it. Under their current law it was possible to be convicted of aggravated assault by threatening a person with a firearm for example but if you actually shot the person, it would be okay. That is because their law says the "use of" the deadly force as self defense but not the "threat of" deadly force in self defense.

The current FL law actually states:
Use of force in defense....

and changes it to:
Use or threatened use in defense....

Mostly it only adds the words or threatened use anywhere in the defense laws where it now says use in defense.

The warning shot discussion is from people both for and against the bill in some "what if" scenarios.

To sum it up, FL is finally making the mere display of a firearm or possible the firing of a shot as legal if you could legally show that it is in self defense. TX does so in a very short law that I listed above. FL does it in a different manner by going through their entire law and anywhere it says the word "use" adding the words "or threaten to use" force.

Thank you for bringing some wisdom & info to this thread rather than uninformed emotional ignorance that is demonstrated in many of the replies.

Those of you stating "ridiculous" or that the warning shot will the be the 1st shot fired at the target, I encourage you to read up.

This law in no way implies that you have an obligation to "fire a warning shot" In fact it has very little to do with pulling the trigger at all, but everything to do with brandishing a weapon.

[tvc184]

I agree on the emotionalism but wouldn't be so harsh on the people posting. Looking at headlines you get that exact impression that if a warning shot is not fired you are committing a crime or something like that. I think that some media wants you to think that and they are successful on that point because that is exactly what it does.

For example, CBS News used the headline.... Warning Shots bill approved by Florida lawmakers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/warning-shot-bill-approved-by-florida-lawmakers/

Fox News posts their headlines this way.... Florida lawmakers approve 'warning shot' bill revising self-defense laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/04/florida-lawmakers-approve-warning-shot-bill-revising-self-defense-laws/

I must just lead a boring life and take time to read things before I post. Others run with the headlines and on the face of it, their comments might be correct unless you dig into the meat of it.

Did I ever mention that I hate the media...........

[Playa]

agreed on the media sentiment.... you know you can't believe a headline anymore!

[LloydMcCoy]

Surely common sense will prevail here. If you are going to fire a shot, it **** well better be to prevent you from being seriously injured or killed.

Agreed

[Dale Moser]

Dear bad guys, If you find yourself on the loud end of any of my firearms just assume the 1st shot is a warning......that you are about to be shot in the chest or head AGAIN.

[Mike D]

We all know that the news media headlines and thread headlines are known to be misleading and sometimes extremely so. It appears so in this case.

If someone wants to actually read through the proposed law (passing both houses but not yet signed by the governor), here it is. If you are not used to reading legislation, normal words are in the current law, struck through words are taken out of current law and underlined words are added to current law.


http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...8&Session=2014

I fell for it.

Thanks for the clarification TVC.

[M.E.B.]

The article I read said this is designed to protect people who may fire a shot but not actually hit the person. The example case they were using was a woman who fired a shot at her husband who was physically threatening her. She tried to use the stand your ground defense but it failed because she missed him. If she had hit him it would have been valid. I don't see why she should be punished because she missed.

From what I remember about this story is that she went into the garage to her car and CAME BACK inside the house to fire the warning shot instead of leaving while she had the chance. So she did not actually STAND HER GROUND.

My fear of such a law would be that someone would ask "Why did you NOT fire a warning shot?" If I have to pull.............

[elkbowhunter]

We don't need no stinkin warning shots!

[Let's go Brandon!]

My personal instincts tell me this a bad law for several reasons. Number one reason is how do you control where that bullet ends up after it leaves the barrel. Number two is how many people will take advantage of the law and just start popping rounds every time they get mad at something or someone.
If I am ever in a situation where I have to fire my weapon, I sure as heck don't want to miss either on purpose or otherwise.
I know there are probably a dozen arguments why you could or should use a warning shot but where does the bad outweigh the good?

ah...they want that shot going in a bad direction, will give them precedence to bolster their argument that guns are inherently unsafe, dangerous & evil.

[Samson]

Why would you give the perps a "warning" to shoot back at you? Doesn't sound very smart in my book!

[Playa]

I agree on the emotionalism but wouldn't be so harsh on the people posting.

And yet they continue to knee jerk

[akey]

Why would you give the perps a "warning" to shoot back at you? Doesn't sound very smart in my book!

Did you read anything at all in this thread?

[Playa]

Did you read anything at all in this thread?

Clearly he read the title & nothing more

[tvc184]

Did you read anything at all in this thread?

The title?