Florida moves ahead with bill legalizing 'warning shots'

Grapeshot said:

Momentary display of gun is not the problem it once was in Florida:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2737727/posts

Click to expand...

It is still illegal in Florida to produce a firearm as a threat. Which is what some posters are advocating. What the change covered was the exposing of a firearm in a holster while legally being carried. It is also legal to open carry a firearm while going to or from fishing or the range, and while doing such. That is no where near pulling a gun on someone.

Even if it was legal to pull a gun on another person, IMO it is incredible stupid, that other person may not be so dumb. Pulling a gun on another person IS deadly force whether that trigger is pulled or not. A really really bad guy is going to use that gun for a proctology exam if the person on the other end of the gun is not willing to use it.

Again I can only speak for myself, but pull a gun on me, the person better be willing to use it because they will not get a second chance.

790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

OC for ME said:

It seems that GZ should have also been charged with the "display" of a firearm while committing a felony, as well as 2nd degree murder, no?

If you are justified, as was GZ, then this proposed law is not needed. I, and I alone, will decide if a trigger pull is required. The consequences of that decision are also mine, and mine alone.

Friday morning quarterbacking is worse than Monday morning quarterbacking. Responsible folks hold themselves accountable for their own acts.

Click to expand...

+ 1 above. This law is just another dumb law from Florida to fix a problem that another law created. Just get rid of the ban on open carry problem solved. And I agree with you it is your decision. But speaking for myself I will not pull my gun in self defense unless I have already made that decision.The current statues already cover using a gun in self defense, and if GZ had not pulled the trigger a very dangerous thug probably would have ended up having possession of GZ's handgun.

While GZ got himself into a bad situation, he did the right thing by pulling the trigger IMO, and the courts.

And TM found out the hard way that being a bully can end your life.

WalkingWolf said:

It is still illegal in Florida to produce a firearm as a threat. Which is what some posters are advocating. What the change covered was the exposing of a firearm in a holster while legally being carried. It is also legal to open carry a firearm while going to or from fishing or the range, and while doing such. That is no where near pulling a gun on someone.

Even if it was legal to pull a gun on another person, IMO it is incredible stupid, that other person may not be so dumb. Pulling a gun on another person IS deadly force whether that trigger is pulled or not. A really really bad guy is going to use that gun for a proctology exam if the person on the other end of the gun is not willing to use it.

Again I can only speak for myself, but pull a gun on me, the person better be willing to use it because they will not get a second chance.

790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

Click to expand...

".......Not in necessary defense" that's the part we are looking at. Sure in your opinion it may be dumb. But its still legal according the to statute cited.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

".......Not in necessary defense" that's the part we are looking at. Sure in your opinion it may be dumb. But its still legal according the to statute cited.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes that is correct! But you are claiming that a person can point a gun as a threat, not in self defense. That is illegal in most states. If it is in self defense a person would be an idiot or a dead idiot not to use it. The fact that the gun is not used is a indication that it is not in self defense, or the person holding the gun is extremely stupid.

Again it boils down to a person is either justified or they are not. They are risking their life, and liberty by playing games of pulling a gun when they are not actually threatened or in fear of life or limb.

"You can't fix stupid" But sometimes life has a way of limiting their reproduction.

Keep in mind that the case that brought up this stupid idea for a law is the conviction of Marissa Alexander. She followed your advice and was going to spend 20 years in jail. She got lucky that her conviction was overturned but she is not off the hook. She was not justified in shooting or pointing a gun. GZ was, and did pull the trigger. The difference, his shiet was in the wind, hers was not. If you are not justified in shooting a threat, you are not justified in threatening another person.

WalkingWolf said:

Yes that is correct! But you are claiming that a person can point a gun as a threat, not in self defense. That is illegal in most states. If it is in self defense a person would be an idiot or a dead idiot not to use it. The fact that the gun is not used is a indication that it is not in self defense, or the person holding the gun is extremely stupid.

Again it boils down to a person is either justified or they are not. They are risking their life, and liberty by playing games of pulling a gun when they are not actually threatened or in fear of life or limb.

"You can't fix stupid" But sometimes life has a way of limiting their reproduction.

Keep in mind that the case that brought up this stupid idea for a law is the conviction of Marissa Alexander. She followed your advice and was going to spend 20 years in jail. She got lucky that her conviction was overturned but she is not off the hook. She was not justified in shooting or pointing a gun. GZ was, and did pull the trigger. The difference, his shiet was in the wind, hers was not. If you are not justified in shooting a threat, you are not justified in threatening another person.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the chick that left the house grabbed the gun then went back into the house and shot the ceiling? Lol

Also I never said anything about using it as a threat. I was referring to self defense. That's what escalation of force is. Lol

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Are you talking about the chick that left the house grabbed the gun then went back into the house and shot the ceiling? Lol

Also I never said anything about using it as a threat. I was referring to self defense. That's what escalation of force is. Lol

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You do know her case is what brought about this law don't you? Escalation of force is bovine scatology, there is no such law in florida. Only a law detailing when force is a defense, a person is either justified or they are not. She was not justified, the jury ruled she was not justified, and probably the next jury will rule the same

If a person life is in danger, there is no need to escalate the force :lol: and if they do not defend themselves they are a dead or injured idiot. If a person is justified their poop is already in the wind, playing games will only get them hurt, it is very stupid advice.

I suggest you actually read laws regarding using deadly force. Particularly Florida, if you can find any section that refers to "escalation of force" please cite it.

WalkingWolf said:

--snipped--
......if you can find any section that refers to "escalation of force" please cite it.

Click to expand...

IMHO there is reference to "escalation of force" in as much as there are different levels of use of force.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter776/All

Grapeshot said:

IMHO there is reference to "escalation of force" in as much as there are different levels of use of force.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter776/All

Click to expand...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

I have read the whole law, there is nothing in there that I saw with the words "escalation of force". IMO if a person pulls a gun they must be justified, so the force is already escalated, OR the person pulling the gun escalated the force which is clearly against the law in Florida.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

There must already be the elements to use force in the first place, otherwise the person using such force is the aggressor. GZ was not the aggressor, MA was. She was not charged with going to the garage to get the gun, that was one of the elements that made her story not reasonable. In GZ's case he followed TM, which was legal, the difference was he reasonably believed and it was supported by evidence that he was in danger of great bodily harm or death.

I repeat, if a person pulls a gun on me, I will draw and I will shoot to stop without hesitation. I will not draw unless I already have a clear threat present, if I do I will not chance being a victim to prove a point. MA was trying to prove a point(IMO) and the jury saw it that way. This law is not needed because self defense is already covered.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.
…SNIP…
Warning shots are a lot tougher because…

Click to expand...

I don't see how.

"Rare and infrequent" though they may be, so is self-defense itself (for the average citizen). If a legitimate self-defense situation occurs, and the victim acts in such a way that not only does he walk away unhurt, but – as a bonus! – so does his aggressor, then we should applaud that outcome, and IMO not look a gift horse in the mouth by too carefully scrutinizing (much less punishing) the actions of the victim.

marshaul said:

I don't see how.

"Rare and infrequent" though they may be, so is self-defense itself (for the average citizen). If a legitimate self-defense situation occurs, and the victim acts in such a way that not only does he walk away unhurt, but – as a bonus! – so does his aggressor, then we should applaud that outcome, and IMO not look a gift horse in the mouth by too carefully scrutinizing (much less punishing) the actions of the victim.

Click to expand...

IMO if someone uses a warning shot, and harms a innocent victim they should go to prison. If nobody is harmed or there is no property damage then it should be up to the prosecutor and a jury whether the act is reckless, or assault. Again in my own personally opinion if someone draws a gun and there is not a imminent threat then it is assault. If there is a imminent threat IMO it is extremely stupid not to pull the trigger.

That is kind of the point a warning shot. The citizen feels that they are justified to use it, but just don't want to possibly kill anyone. Tough choice to make.

A gator don't care about no warning shot, just shoot it. And a thug knows what a gun is and then must decide if he wants to end up like a gator.

Better to shoot a bad guy than an innocent victim, unless you are a NYPD officer.

Nightmare said:

Quantify the possibility. It is vanishingly small.

Click to expand...

Says you.

In FL, the state has mandated that a FL citizen must wait for the thug to threaten, thus the though choice.

If OC were the rule, then thugs ("smart ones") would keep on going and the only threat would be from gators.

Grapeshot said:

Momentary display of gun is not the problem it once was in Florida:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2737727/posts

Click to expand...

Never was.

WalkingWolf said:

Better to shoot a bad guy than an innocent victim, [strike]unless you are a NYPD officer.[/strike]

Click to expand...

............................................................................^.........^
.................................................................................

OC for ME said:

Says you.

In FL, the state has mandated that a FL citizen must wait for the thug to threaten, thus the though choice.

If OC were the rule, then thugs ("smart ones") would keep on going and the only threat would be from gators.

Click to expand...

Agree, FL should really do away with OC restrictions. This new law will not or would not have helped Marissa Anderson. She was dumb, she probably would be safer in prison considering how dumb she was.

Grapeshot said:

............................................................................^.........^
.................................................................................

Click to expand...

Have they not shot innocent bystanders? It is not bashing if it is true.

WalkingWolf said:

Have they not shot innocent bystanders? It is not bashing if it is true.

Click to expand...

Did I say "bashing?"

Still is decidedly better to not go there - too many users, posts and threads have overdone that.

OC for ME said:

Says you.

In FL, the state has mandated that a FL citizen must wait for the thug to threaten, thus the though choice.

If OC were the rule, then thugs ("smart ones") would keep on going and the only threat would be from gators.

Click to expand...

In FL, the state has mandated that a FL citizen must wait for the thug to threaten, thus the though choice.

Click to expand...

Threaten is a bit misleading. In Florida we must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm before we may use deadly force, which is defined as firing of the firearm (and other fact based criteria given to the trier of fact to determine) - Which is clearly the only logical stipulation to make. In non-deadly force situations, we are able to meet force with force.

The first iteration of the bill was/is absolutely horrible. It is badly constructed and has conflicting burdens of proof and included this stupid warning shot language (it was scary and radical to the opposition). It was never going to see the light of day. It was simply publicized to stir up discussion and hopefully get the opposition to accept a more reasonable 'alternative'.

The bill that was passed out of committee simply contains "threat of force" language added to our use of force statutes. Which, as I have explained before is a completely meaningless gesture because this is already provided for in case law.

If you can use force, it is axiomatic that you can also use the threat of that same level of force. :banghead:

If you don't want to get arrested for Aggravated Assault (the whole 'point' of the legislation) then don't fire a gun if you do not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Simple.

In everyone of the cases that are alluded to, the State has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to a jury that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. So if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, it is a very simple, straightforward matter to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence - the level required at an immunity hearing.

This bill is nothing more that BS political grandstanding: "Hey look at us, we care about your 2nd Amendment rights...."

It will change nothing, nothing at all.

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.



ETA: I absolutely agree about open carry.

WalkingWolf said:

IMO if someone uses a warning shot, and harms a innocent victim they should go to prison. If nobody is harmed or there is no property damage then it should be up to the prosecutor and a jury whether the act is reckless, or assault. Again in my own personally opinion if someone draws a gun and there is not a imminent threat then it is assault. If there is a imminent threat IMO it is extremely stupid not to pull the trigger.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm fine with results-driven analysis.

In truth, the only way you can really judge the judgment of someone in something like a self-defense scenario is by the outcome.

If nobody got hurt, no harm, no foul.