• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Florida moves ahead with bill legalizing 'warning shots'

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida

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." :banghead:
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

mark-in-texas

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Richmond, Tx
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?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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...
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
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.
:banghead:


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:

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
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.
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
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.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
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:

MackTheKnife

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
198
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
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:
Top