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!