Florida moves ahead with bill legalizing 'warning shots'

[OC for ME]

<snip>

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.

Did GZ go through all of those process steps?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Did GZ go through all of those process steps?

GZ declined to go through the immunity hearing.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

What the hell does that have to do with CIVILIAN, CITIZEN, IN THE UNITED STATES? Has it sunk in yet, another stupid diversion by you?

Are you asking how "Escalation of Force" applies to a civilian/citizen?

Pretty easily, I'd think.
If someone punches or shoves you, you have a right to punch or shove back
you do NOT have the right to escalate that to deadly force and kill him, his wife, kids, pets and pee in their garden.

Generally, as long as you are not guilty of instigation, you may "escalate" one level above whoever was the aggressor.

 

[notalawyer]

GZ declined to go through the immunity hearing.

Wisely so. His arrest was BS! His prosecution was criminal! All a result of political/racial pressure.

If he would have had the immunity hearing he would have to expose much of his defense, giving the prosecution an advantage at trial.

Plus the fact that the judge was never going to rule in his favor even if he had HD quality video/audio recordings of the entire 'confrontation' from six different vantage points and twelve eyewitnesses with night vision equipment!

 

[ixtow]

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."

You're both wrong because you're both right. OC deters, CC can't, by definition. Out of sight, out of mind.

Putting that gun in your hand, whether if comes from concealment or not, is still one more baby step between threat and pulling the trigger. Intentional or not, if the gun in your hand changes the BG's mind, then you're done. Theat averted.

Floridians deserve disfensive display. Warning shot? I disagree with this. If seeing it in your hand doesn't convince the BG that you mnea business, that bullet belongs in his cheast/neck/head, promptly followed by as many more as it takes to end the threat.

We're missing a step in our defense laws that forces us to kill people that we might not have to. Some people may tack that option. Some may not. Can you blame them? The State has been forcing us to skip it for a very long time...

 

[ixtow]

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.

It's not completely meaningless. It's nice to see the legislature adjust a law to be statutory where only case law currrently exists. If only the non-existing 'printing' statute were so written... An excellent example of case law that will bone you because reading the statute will lead you astray. And what about the Police ability to claim ignorance by complexity and gain QI? It's almost meaningless, not completely meaningless... Most accurately stated, it does a lot less than it's presenters would have us think. It's a politician trying to advertise themselves as doing a lot more than they really are. Is that unusual? "Look at me, I'm so bold and pro-gun!" But they're really not doing much...

Instead of just talking about how crappy the current batch of bills are, we should be cattle prodding them to do something that might actually matter by calling them out for it loudly and publicly.

Put open carry on the table again. Keep doing it every year.