Florida passes “warning shot” bill…

[Willie]

"So tell me, Mr. Defendant, why did you not fire a warning shot when you are clearly allowed to do so under law? Your Honor, clearly he intended to kill Mr. Thug because he did not attempt a non-lethal means of stopping him."

Call me suspicious.

Hmmm... never thought of it that way...You're right. It could be used against a person, instead of for them..

 

[sj kahr k40]

Will this law protect someone that goes into the garage retrieves a gun then goes back into a house before they fire a warning shot? I would think not, that's not defensive gun use in my opinion

 

[pudly]

Will this law protect someone that goes into the garage retrieves a gun then goes back into a house before they fire a warning shot? I would think not, that's not defensive gun use in my opinion

Depends on the circumstances. If your spouse is being attacked and you run to the garage and came back and fired to stop the attack, how would that not be a DGU?

 

[KLB]

"So tell me, Mr. Defendant, why did you not fire a warning shot when you are clearly allowed to do so under law? Your Honor, clearly he intended to kill Mr. Thug because he did not attempt a non-lethal means of stopping him."

Call me suspicious.

There is nothing in the law that mandates a warning shot. This only says you can't be charged if you do fire one.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Depends on the circumstances. If your spouse is being attacked and you run to the garage and came back and fired to stop the attack, how would that not be a DGU?

Ok, what if you are being attacked and escape, grab a gun then return and fire a warning shot? Is that a DGU

 

[rhino]

Having seen the slide down a few slippery slopes and the virtual guarantee of unintended consequences rearing their ugly head . . .

. . . I hope this does not eventually lead to warning shots being expected or "required" as part of a continuum of force.

 

[pudly]

Ok, what if you are being attacked and escape, grab a gun then return and fire a warning shot? Is that a DGU

Sorry, but I'm not going to comment on every scenario. You commented that escaping and then coming back wasn't a DGU and then I gave you can example where any reasonable person would consider it a DGU. Some scenarious clearly would be unreasonable. If you look at the verbiage, fully half of the text is qualifiers stating circumstances when it would be considered reasonable.

Some of the verbiage:

776.001 Legislative findings and intent; defensive display
41 of weapon or firearm; defense of life, home, and property.—
42 (1) The Legislature finds that it is unreasonable to
43 prosecute a person for acting in a defensive manner. The
44 Legislature intends to clarify that the defensive display of a
45 weapon or firearm, including the discharge of a firearm for the
46 purpose of a warning shot, does not constitute the use of deadly
47 force and is a valid method of preventing or terminating an
48 imminent or actual violent criminal attack.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to immunize a
50 person from prosecution who acts in defense of life, home, and
51 property from violent attack or the threat of violent attack by:
52 (a) Defensively displaying a weapon or firearm, if the
53 person reasonably believes that it is necessary to warn an
54 attacker to prevent or terminate an imminent or actual violent
55 criminal attack, including by the firing of a warning shot;
56 (b) Using force, if the person reasonably believes that it
57 is necessary to prevent or terminate an imminent or actual
58 violent criminal attack; or
59 (c) Using deadly force, if the person reasonably believes
60 that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm or to
61 prevent or terminate the imminent or actual commission of a
62 forcible felony.

 

[pudly]

Having seen the slide down a few slippery slopes and the virtual guarantee of unintended consequences rearing their ugly head . . .

. . . I hope this does not eventually lead to warning shots being expected or "required" as part of a continuum of force.

This law doesn't stop stupidity. You currently have people asking why you didn't shoot the gun out of his hand instead of shooting center mass. Therefore, it likely will be used against someone at some point. Definitely sucks, but I think the good far outweighs the bad. I've always thought defensive brandishing being criminal was insane.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I was talking about the case that Kirk referenced, she went outside got a gun then went back and fired a shot, IMO this law would not change the outcome of her case

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Its going to be interesting to see the unintended consequences of this vs what they wanted to accomplish.

 

[JMoses]

Did Joe Biden author this?

 

[rhino]

Did Joe Biden author this?

It's unclear whether or not Joe Biden has the mental capacity to read and write, so I'm going to guess "no."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Its going to be interesting to see the unintended consequences of this vs what they wanted to accomplish.​

BBI just won another thread.

 

[jamil]

Its going to be interesting to see the unintended consequences of this vs what they wanted to accomplish.

I wonder. Will prosecutors try to exploit it to prosecute SD cases? Will some gun owners try to abuse it? Florida, being what it is, I can't imagine things will go according to plan.

 

[ModernGunner]

Agreed. It is designed to protect people who draw in a legitimate self-defense scenario. Don't see a problem with it, there is no requirement to fire a warning shot first.

^^ This. ^^

 

[Bfish]

Its going to be interesting to see the unintended consequences of this vs what they wanted to accomplish.

My exact thought upon reading it!

 

[rhino]

BBI just won another thread.

HEY! I said it too! And earlier!

Having seen the slide down a few slippery slopes and the virtual guarantee of unintended consequences rearing their ugly head . . .

. . . I hope this does not eventually lead to warning shots being expected or "required" as part of a continuum of force.

 

[Tim Enyeart]

It would seem they have left a lot for the courts to decide what is reasonable. It would seem as long as a violent attack or the threat of a violent attack is in place a warning shot could be an option. Inside the city, in a building, or near a crowd could be reasonable or unreasonable. The way it's written, not a good law.

 

[bingley]

. . . I hope this does not eventually lead to warning shots being expected or "required" as part of a continuum of force.

Warning shotS?

"Stop trying to break into my house! I have a gun! *wave the gun in the window* I am going to fire a warning shot! *bang, a hole in the roof* Hey, I said stop! Don't do that to my door! I'm going to fire my second warning shot if you don't stop with the axe! *bang, another hole in the roof* I'm serious, I've got a gun and I'm not afraid to use it. Hey, what are you doing? Stop taking off my pants and bending me over. If you continue I'm going to have to fire anotherAAAAAH *bang* Sorry, that was an accidental discharge. Seriously, I mean it. Stop it, or I will fire my fourth warning shot. My revolver holds six rounds."

 

[jamil]

Warning shotS?

"Stop trying to break into my house! I have a gun! *wave the gun in the window* I am going to fire a warning shot! *bang, a hole in the roof* Hey, I said stop! Don't do that to my door! I'm going to fire my second warning shot if you don't stop with the axe! *bang, another hole in the roof* I'm serious, I've got a gun and I'm not afraid to use it. Hey, what are you doing? Stop taking off my pants and bending me over. If you continue I'm going to have to fire anotherAAAAAH *bang* Sorry, that was an accidental discharge. Seriously, I mean it. Stop it, or I will fire my fourth warning shot. My revolver holds six rounds."

So basically, what you're saying is, a warning shot is very similar to a red line stated very publicly where there's no intention of enforcing the red line.