carracer
Regular Member
I would NEVER fire a warning shot. It is possible that I may miss the target at some point.
Of course the new bill endorses a warning shot. The mere mention that a warning shot is a defensive display instead of employing lethal force is endorsing a warning shot.
I am not opposed to this bill. Stating that the bill does not endorse a warning shot is not true in my view. The discharge of a firearm in a self defense situation is not and should not be considered nothing more than merely displaying your weapon. Now, do you deserve prosecution if you "take" a warning shot? No. But do not lessen the act of discharging your weapon in a self defense situation. As was posted earlier, that round went somewhere, even if it is toward the ground near your feet.
In many cases where a warning shot would deter a criminal attack, deletion of certain language within 790.053 would have the same effect without any discharge needed, you know what I'm getting at. I like the bill, Sean, but it's bold in light of the slaying of the thug Treyvon Martin. How is it that this bill can be brought forward at this time but OC cannot, especially in light of CWFL holders continuing to be abused and other red states getting rid of their prohibitions? In fact, wouldn't 790.053 have to be amended anyway to make it consistent with your bill?
If warning shots are considered by just about anyone to be a very bad idea what makes you think it is a good idea in Florida?I'm pretty clear about the bill's intent. I wrote it after-all...
If warning shots are considered by just about anyone to be a very bad idea what makes you think it is a good idea in Florida?
The current law is wrong.
Just because something is usually a bad idea does not mean you should end up in jail for a mandatory minimum of 20 years. There are very limited scenarios where a warning shot is a good option. warning shots are actually just a small part of the bill.
Under Florida law, if you are lawfully carrying and someone attacks you by punching you in the face multiple times, or beats your wife/husband/child; you can't even draw your gun to stop the attack. Because until the attacker uses a weapon or actually beats someone with enough force kill, you can't draw until lethal force is justified.
We're destroying people's lives who had no criminal intent, people who only were trying to defend themselves. The current law is wrong.
Maybe 790.151(5). 776 seems to permit the use of any level of force up to deadly force. Would this not include a warning shot?[SIZE=-1]This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property[/SIZE]....
Is there no lawful self defense with a firearm in Florida?775.087 2. Possession or use of weapon; aggravated battery; felony reclassification; minimum sentence.— Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years.
Is it possible that this bill is to address case law that contravenes existing statute regarding the use of a firearm during a lawful self defense situation?
Maybe you should look at our brandishing defense law here in AZ. It does not include warning shots.
I have to go to work but I'll cite it afterwards if necessary.
Thanks.Exactly! We have people actually being prosecuted and convicted for just showing a gun to an attacker, without even drawing it, when the court finds that the attack was not vicious enough to cause death or permanent injury.
In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.
This is Florida's actual "shoot first" law. It means that you can't defend yourself by showing a firearm until you are actually justified in killing someone.
Thanks.
If prosecutors are charging folks and juries are convicting folks of acts that are blatantly lawful then this bill will not fix that behavior. A warning shot protection bill/law will not fix anything if folks get arrested for merely showing and not discharging a firearm as you describe above.
How will the citizenry and legislature fix the courts/prosecutors ignoring black letter law?
Good luck.
Exactly! We have people actually being prosecuted and convicted for just showing a gun to an attacker, without even drawing it, when the court finds that the attack was not vicious enough to cause death or permanent injury.
In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.
This is Florida's actual "shoot first" law. It means that you can't defend yourself by showing a firearm until you are actually justified in killing someone.
... But, again, based on your anecdote, the problem is with the legal definition of situations warranting deadly force. Fix THAT. ...
I have often said that,
You can NOT display your weapon, Unless deadly force is justified.
That when it is justified, only then can you display your weapon by drawing your weapon.
If you draw your weapon, you MUST Shoot your attacker!
We see in the stories above that any other use of the weapon will lead to heart ache for the defender.
It is important to only use the threat of lethal force when legal,
then, lethal force should be just that, Lethal!
A defense of property statute should be considered in this discussion.In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.
Use of physical force in defense of property.
563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.