Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 89

Thread: Florida moves ahead with bill legalizing 'warning shots'

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    8,425

    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.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews
    Hmm....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,628
    How long before the dissonance between this Florida law and the Virginia law against missing unseen targets makes it to SCOTUS? God darn progressives!
    To be sure, were I to be in your presence, I would be carrying my gun at you. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and the Truth. MOLON LABE

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Hmm....
    The media description over the past couple days is based on the first version of the bill which is languishing in committee and will die there, the new bill that was passed through that same committee Wednesday, only adds 'threat of force' to the use of force in the self-defense statutes.

    But this is another complete waste of the legislature's time. It will not prevent these so-called improper prosecutions/convictions. Because in every one of them the State was able prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

    It's simply another load of BS politics, so they can say "Hey look at us, we are trying to do something to help gun owners."

  4. #4
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    188

    Warning shots

    Simply amazing. We can't OC in FL yet there is a push for warning shots. Go figure.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    Simply amazing. We can't OC in FL yet there is a push for warning shots. Go figure.
    i agree 100%. OC offers the visual deterrent without unholstering the weapon. I strongly disagree with unholstering your weapon to deter a criminal. Once you pull it, you've got to use it because you have escalated the situation and are implying imminent use of deadly force whereas a properly OCed pistol offers the visual deterrent without the escalation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,911
    I'm hesitant to agree with the concept, BUT

    I' all for decriminalizing conduct that may defuse a life-threatening situation and allow everyone (even the assailant that's warned off by the shot) to go home alive. Decriminalize the shooting itself and leave open the prosecution for unsafe behavior should it be warranted.

    I will admit here that I have not done an in-depth reading of the law, but if someone had the choice between safely shooting as a warning and shooting an possibly killing an assailant, I'd hope they chose the non-lethal route.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Tx
    Posts
    316
    1. Ammo's too expensive for warning shots!
    2. Unless you fire directly in to the ground, that bullet can travel quite a distance and YOU'D be liable for any damages or injuries caused.
    3. Why would you want to deplete your limited supply?
    Lower the crime rate by lowering the criminal survival rate!
    When people say 'God Bless America' I'm sure He says, "I gave you Texas!"

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,911
    Agreed on all points but if I could spend $.63 to dissuade an attacker and give him a "come to Jesus" moment instead of a sucking chest wound, I'm willing to deplete my funds and ammo supply. I suspect that with the cost of lawyers (especially in a homicide case, justified or not) the economy of not expending the round may be false.

    Either way, it's decriminalizing a behavior that's not harming anyone (except perhaps their hearing.)
    Again, I don't advocate warning shots, but I can certainly forgive them in the right circumstance.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-09-2014 at 02:46 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i agree 100%. OC offers the visual deterrent without unholstering the weapon. I strongly disagree with unholstering your weapon to deter a criminal. Once you pull it, you've got to use it because you have escalated the situation and are implying imminent use of deadly force whereas a properly OCed pistol offers the visual deterrent without the escalation.
    Why should one have to use it? I understand only being allowed to draw your gun for fear of death, great bodily harm, etc., but just because I draw doesn't mean I should have to fire. Perhaps someone is threatening me with a bat. I fear for my life and pull my gun and when they realize I am also armed they back down.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i agree 100%. OC offers the visual deterrent without unholstering the weapon. I strongly disagree with unholstering your weapon to deter a criminal. Once you pull it, you've got to use it because you have escalated the situation and are implying imminent use of deadly force whereas a properly OCed pistol offers the visual deterrent without the escalation.
    I cannot overemphasize my objection to the idea stated here.
    Just imagine if you will, the absolute precision of the timing demanded from the poster.

    You're in a situation where you're sure it will become deadly - -
    you draw a microsecond too late and wind up dead
    you draw a microsecond too soon and the assailant throws down his gun, repents, and cries for salvation from Jesus. Guess what, now you have no choice but to gun him down in cold blood.

    Thank gawd such standards don't apply to police officers, they can draw and be ready and not have to kill everyone they unholster for.

    Kopis, can you imagine what will happen if you Ever have to act in self-defense and a prosecutor gets hold of your post??? He's gonna have a frickin' field day, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr Kopis deliberately and with malice aforethought outright executed Mr Innocent in cold blood. Here is a post he made on a forum of gun nuts where he said that if he ever pulled his gun he was going to use it. And by that, ladies and gentlemen, he meant to 'use it on someone'; homicide, bump off, slot, assassinate, manslaughter and butchery; murder most foul."
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-09-2014 at 04:17 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,347
    Hilarious the legislature hasn't considered how open carry may deter crimes. Or maybe they have considered and they just don't care. I like the latter.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    9,105
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Why should one have to use it? I understand only being allowed to draw your gun for fear of death, great bodily harm, etc., but just because I draw doesn't mean I should have to fire. Perhaps someone is threatening me with a bat. I fear for my life and pull my gun and when they realize I am also armed they back down.
    If it is me he better be able to drop the bat real fast, because once I decide to draw I will fire once on target.
    Primus> "Well.... If you take my hat. Decide to wear my hat. Its in your possession ."

    "I call popo say "he has my hat i left it at his house". They go talk to you. You say its yours. Sounds like a civil court matter."

    "Now I instead say he robbed me... Well popo done go and cuff you up I keep hat or it goes to evidence...you go to court I testify you done did rob me. You now have to prove you didn't...."

  13. #13
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,837
    Quote Originally Posted by mark-in-texas View Post
    1. Ammo's too expensive for warning shots!
    2. Unless you fire directly in to the ground, that bullet can travel quite a distance and YOU'D be liable for any damages or injuries caused.
    3. Why would you want to deplete your limited supply?
    Well, for a warning shot for the next guy who wants to rob you...
    Do not take any postings to be the opinion of the poster .. poster may be posting opinions of others and not necessarily himself ... carry on

    "Filing a notice of trespass with your local, county, state authorities , to keep all town employees off your land, would cut down on the government from interfering or harassing you, at least put you in a little bit stronger legal position" .. chk you local laws (disclaimer)
    [/I]

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,911
    You guys know how you're advised to "shoot to stop, not to kill" because of the legal implications, right?

    What do you think this could look like?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    1,668
    I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.

    More then one criminal assault has been stopped when it has become know that victim is armed.

    Warning shots are a lot tougher because of the high probability of some thing bad happening.

    When I was on my Departments firearms and use of force committee we had a long discussion on warning shots. Some where for forbidding they all together some were for a more modest policy.

    We were trying to determine if the policy should allow or forbid them. We decide the policy should read, that they should be RARE and INFREQUENT base on the facts at the time they were used.

    This was decided mostly on the facts of two situations where warning shots were used and the suspects were taken into custody after the warning shots with out harm to the officers or suspects.

    Having read the use of force reports and interviewing the officers I truly believe without the warning shots the officers would have ended up shooting both suspects.

    It seemed clear that both of these suspects were trying to commit suicide by cop and the warning shots jarred them out of that line of thought and they surrendered because of the warning shots and not pressing forward with their attack on the officers that would have force the officers to shoot them.

    One was armed with a baseball bat the other was not armed but kept making threats saying he had a gun and making movements like he had a gun and was going to use it.

    Both warning shots were fired into good bullet stopping areas and there was no one else around.

    Warning shots good, bad or other wise I guess one would have to take the totally of the situation into account before determining if they were justified or not and safely executed .
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 01-09-2014 at 09:57 PM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.

    More then one criminal assault has been stopped when it has become know that victim is armed.

    Warning shots are a lot tougher because of the high probability of some thing bad happening.

    When I was on my Departments firearms and use of force committee we had a long discussion on warning shots. Some where for forbidding they all together some were for a more modest policy.

    We were trying to determine if the policy should allow or forbid them. We decide the policy should read, that they should be RARE and INFREQUENT base on the facts at the time they were used.

    This was decided mostly on the facts of two situations where warning shots were used and the suspects were taken into custody after the warning shots with out harm to the officers or suspects.

    Having read the use of force reports and interviewing the officers I truly believe without the warning shots the officers would have ended up shooting both suspects.

    It seemed clear that both of these suspects were trying to commit suicide by cop and the warning shots jarred them out of that line of thought and they surrendered because of the warning shots and not pressing forward with their attack on the officers that would have force the officers to shoot them.

    One was armed with a baseball bat the other was not armed but kept making threats saying he had a gun and making movements like he had a gun and was going to use it.

    Both warning shots were fired into good bullet stopping areas and there was no one else around.

    Warning shots good, bad or other wise I guess one would have to take the totally of the situation into account before determining if they were justified or not and safely executed .
    +1 well said

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.

    More then one criminal assault has been stopped when it has become know that victim is armed.

    Warning shots are a lot tougher because of the high probability of some thing bad happening.

    When I was on my Departments firearms and use of force committee we had a long discussion on warning shots. Some where for forbidding they all together some were for a more modest policy.

    We were trying to determine if the policy should allow or forbid them. We decide the policy should read, that they should be RARE and INFREQUENT base on the facts at the time they were used.

    This was decided mostly on the facts of two situations where warning shots were used and the suspects were taken into custody after the warning shots with out harm to the officers or suspects.

    Having read the use of force reports and interviewing the officers I truly believe without the warning shots the officers would have ended up shooting both suspects.

    It seemed clear that both of these suspects were trying to commit suicide by cop and the warning shots jarred them out of that line of thought and they surrendered because of the warning shots and not pressing forward with their attack on the officers that would have force the officers to shoot them.

    One was armed with a baseball bat the other was not armed but kept making threats saying he had a gun and making movements like he had a gun and was going to use it.

    Both warning shots were fired into good bullet stopping areas and there was no one else around.

    Warning shots good, bad or other wise I guess one would have to take the totally of the situation into account before determining if they were justified or not and safely executed .
    I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.
    Which is completely lawful today in Florida in a legitimate self-defense situation.

    The bill is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. All it now contains in the addition of the phrase "threat of force" to the use of force statutes. Again something that is already provided for in case law, and common sense reading of the statutes.

    The original bill is and will sit languishing in committee without action until it expires. That is the one containing the terrible idea of 'warning shots' and other horrible writing including conflicting burden of proof statements make that version unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

    The bill was nothing more than political BS, dreamed up to show the serfs "Hey, look at us, we actually care about the 2nd Amendment and we are doing something to help gun owners."

    If you are justified in using deadly force it is axiomatic that you are authorized to use any level of force including the threat of using such force.



    Stupid media reporting without removing the head from their ********.

    Stupid public for believing either of these bills will have any impact of how charges are filed/prosecuted.

    Nothing changes.
    Get arrested. Just like today.
    Post bond, pay for attorney. Just like today.
    Request an immunity hearing. Just like today.
    Prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity should attach. Just like today.
    Succeed - go home a free man. Just like today.
    Fail - go to trial. Just like today.
    State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in self defense. Just like today.

    Nothing changes!
    Last edited by notalawyer; 01-09-2014 at 10:37 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kingsland, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    403
    When I'm instructing new sailors with firearms, the question of "warning shots" always comes up. This is what I tell them. "There is no such thing as a warning shot with small arms. If you find yourself in a situation where Deadly Force is necessary, the warning is verbal and your gun is drawn. The bad guy has 2 choices at that point....stop what they are doing....or get shot....period."

    The bad guy makes that decision for me. Whether I pull the trigger or not is up to him. But once I pull trigger, I, ME, MYSELF....is responsible for that round and what it hits. This proposed bill is complete and utter GARBAGE!!!!

    Just my $0.02.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  19. #19
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I cannot overemphasize my objection to the idea stated here.
    Just imagine if you will, the absolute precision of the timing demanded from the poster.

    You're in a situation where you're sure it will become deadly - -
    you draw a microsecond too late and wind up dead
    you draw a microsecond too soon and the assailant throws down his gun, repents, and cries for salvation from Jesus. Guess what, now you have no choice but to gun him down in cold blood.

    Thank gawd such standards don't apply to police officers, they can draw and be ready and not have to kill everyone they unholster for.

    Kopis, can you imagine what will happen if you Ever have to act in self-defense and a prosecutor gets hold of your post??? He's gonna have a frickin' field day, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr Kopis deliberately and with malice aforethought outright executed Mr Innocent in cold blood. Here is a post he made on a forum of gun nuts where he said that if he ever pulled his gun he was going to use it. And by that, ladies and gentlemen, he meant to 'use it on someone'; homicide, bump off, slot, assassinate, manslaughter and butchery; murder most foul."
    i guess we just see it differently. I think it is huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I am not an LEO and therefore cannot draw it to diffuse a situation (that would be brandishing). My CCW instructor told us never to draw if we dont need to pull the trigger to prevent imminent bodily harm or death. I think that if people are encouraged to draw to diffuse situations, there is likely to be a lot more people drawing their firearm when it is not appropriate or when deadly force is not being met with deadly force. I know that's hard to read but for example, if you were to happen across two guys fist fighting, the new law might allow a CCW holder to think it would be ok to brandish or even discharge a round to break up the fight when he/she is not being met with deadly force.

    Besides, since i like to pistol shoot and shoot idpa, they're going to have a field day anyway. that's just the world we live in sadly.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    1,668
    Quote Originally Posted by MarlboroLts5150 View Post
    When I'm instructing new sailors with firearms, the question of "warning shots" always comes up. This is what I tell them. "There is no such thing as a warning shot with small arms. If you find yourself in a situation where Deadly Force is necessary, the warning is verbal and your gun is drawn. The bad guy has 2 choices at that point....stop what they are doing....or get shot....period."

    The bad guy makes that decision for me. Whether I pull the trigger or not is up to him. But once I pull trigger, I, ME, MYSELF....is responsible for that round and what it hits. This proposed bill is complete and utter GARBAGE!!!!

    Just my $0.02.
    I find limiting ones options when using deadly force is not a good idea. Self defense situations are to dynamic to have a solid do not deviate from rules.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 01-10-2014 at 11:24 AM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  21. #21
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    188
    The Sailors have to be taught NO warning shots due to the Secretary of the Navy instruction (SECNAVINST 5500.29) that says so. Warning shots with a rifle or crew-served weapon is authorized against maritime threats.

    Razor Max Tapatalk.
    Last edited by MackTheKnife; 01-10-2014 at 11:57 AM.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  22. #22
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    188
    The idea of warning shots scares the Navy brass.




    Razor Max Tapatalk.
    Last edited by MackTheKnife; 01-10-2014 at 08:25 PM.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  23. #23
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    188
    Razor Max Tapatalk.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  24. #24
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i agree 100%. OC offers the visual deterrent without unholstering the weapon. I strongly disagree with un-holstering your weapon to deter a criminal. Once you pull it, you've got to use it because you have escalated the situation and are implying imminent use of deadly force whereas a properly OCed pistol offers the visual deterrent without the escalation.
    You've open carried the correct. Once you have drawn, here's what can happen. You can be shot by your 'victim' (which is what the BG becomes when you escalate). You can be shot by the police. You can be shot by another LAC carrying who makes a wrong judgement. So you'd better be shooting and stopping the threat and then putting your gat away and standing down when it's possible. You can be seen and called in as GATTTOTP, or brandishing without cause. You can be targeted as someone who has a firearm and should have it liberated (i.e. stolen).

    Now, I'm not saying these things -will- happen. Most of the time they don't. But letting someone fire a warning shot? That's crazy. Now, having a prosecutor who can exercise discretion is something else. In fact even WITH a law like this, a prosecutor can side step it. You can't legislate common sense.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i guess we just see it differently. I think it is huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I am not an LEO and therefore cannot draw it to diffuse a situation (that would be brandishing). My CCW instructor told us never to draw if we dont need to pull the trigger to prevent imminent bodily harm or death. I think that if people are encouraged to draw to diffuse situations, there is likely to be a lot more people drawing their firearm when it is not appropriate or when deadly force is not being met with deadly force. I know that's hard to read but for example, if you were to happen across two guys fist fighting, the new law might allow a CCW holder to think it would be ok to brandish or even discharge a round to break up the fight when he/she is not being met with deadly force.

    Besides, since i like to pistol shoot and shoot idpa, they're going to have a field day anyway. that's just the world we live in sadly.
    Would it? What's the text of the Arkansas Code re 'brandishing'?

    It's not me just 'seeing it differently', I'm trying to keep your ass out of prison.

    In the world we live in, as I tried to explain, words mean things. If you ever do have to shoot someone, the prosecutor is going to have a field day with the words you posted. He's going to plant the idea in the jury's collective heads that you had malice aforethought when you shot that poor bastid. That's the difference between justified and unjustified homicide. It's also the difference between eating at home and eating institutional food with plastic utensils for a number of years.
    4 12 203
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-10-2014 at 12:29 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •