mc5aw
Member
I'm not sure this is a great idea, but it's sure to initiate great debate ... (courtesy of MSN . com):
Firing a 'warning shot' at an attacker legal in Florida
Firing a 'warning shot' at an attacker legal in Florida
FLA ok's warning shots ...
- Thread starter mc5aw
- Start date
- Status
Register to hide this ad
It's MSNBC, so without reading the wording of the bill, there is no way to know if they are even close on the facts.
I don't know about this.
Prosecutor: " He had entered the room, was advancing with a knife and you felt like you were in fear for your life, is that right?"
Defendant: "Yes sir, that's why I shot him. I felt like my life was in danger."
Prosecutor: "Please tell the court why you didn't just fire a warning shot? Is it because you think you're John Wayne or something???"
Prosecutor: " He had entered the room, was advancing with a knife and you felt like you were in fear for your life, is that right?"
Defendant: "Yes sir, that's why I shot him. I felt like my life was in danger."
Prosecutor: "Please tell the court why you didn't just fire a warning shot? Is it because you think you're John Wayne or something???"
bhayles
Member
MSN News is not the same as MSNBC.
AirForceShooter
Member
At least it cuts off over zealous DA's.
AFS
AFS
whataboutbob
Member
Defendant:"I did fire a warning shot,I just missed"
A couple things. 1. Warning shot is an option not a requirement or even a suggestion, it's additional legal protection.
2. The prosecutor you illustrate would figure out some angle to make you look bad no matter what.
3. If your SD shooting went to trial you wouldn't be on the stand if you had competent representation.
that warning shot might be a good deterrent in a dog attack and save alot of leagel hassle
A good explanation without all the media buzz words.
"warning shot" bill | Florida | Stand-Your-Ground
"warning shot" bill | Florida | Stand-Your-Ground
southcoast
Member
1. Warning shot is an option not a requirement or even a suggestion, it's additional legal protection.
2. The prosecutor you illustrate would figure out some angle to make you look bad no matter what.
3. If your SD shooting went to trial you wouldn't be on the stand if you had competent representation.
I agree with you on one and two, but as a criminal defense lawyer who has successfully defended self defense cases, you are required to testify in most self defense claims. It is an affirmative defense which requires you to put on your evidence as to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the event. The only direct evidence will be the defendant's own testimony in most cases.
What the infamous "Warning Shot" bill says is far different from what the media and opponents report. It does nothing to weaken SYG, and in fact strengthens the individuals right--and options--in self defense. It does nothing to support a deranged DA and in fact weakens a DA's arguments.
The law does not require a warning shot any more than it requires one to SYG. It is a legal option to fire a warning shot, no more/no less.
One should read the bill and the multitude of criminal laws it affects before spouting off a bunch of what-ifs. If you do, you'll see that the "warning shot" portion is a minute portion of what the bill changes.
The law does not require a warning shot any more than it requires one to SYG. It is a legal option to fire a warning shot, no more/no less.
One should read the bill and the multitude of criminal laws it affects before spouting off a bunch of what-ifs. If you do, you'll see that the "warning shot" portion is a minute portion of what the bill changes.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
From the link...
If you would have been lawfully justified in actually shooting an aggressor, under those same circumstances you would be lawfully justified in merely threatening to shoot someone.
Makes sense to me. If use of deadly force is justified it doesn't matter (under law) if you put two in the aggressor's chest in an attempt to stop the threat or put two in the floor in front of the aggressor in an attempt to stop the threat. I think option two is unwise for multiple reasons but should be legal if use of force is otherwise justified.
The poster child for this appears to be some whack-job who had already got into it with her baby daddy in the house then went out to the car to get a gun and returned. Seems like a stupid example of a stupid person with a gun.
If you would have been lawfully justified in actually shooting an aggressor, under those same circumstances you would be lawfully justified in merely threatening to shoot someone.
Makes sense to me. If use of deadly force is justified it doesn't matter (under law) if you put two in the aggressor's chest in an attempt to stop the threat or put two in the floor in front of the aggressor in an attempt to stop the threat. I think option two is unwise for multiple reasons but should be legal if use of force is otherwise justified.
The poster child for this appears to be some whack-job who had already got into it with her baby daddy in the house then went out to the car to get a gun and returned. Seems like a stupid example of a stupid person with a gun.
Last edited:
keith44spl
Member
"Sir, the threat against my life was so direct and immediate, there was no time for any type of warning....
I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt I was about to be seriously injured or killed....
Ah, this John Wayne feller, did he play lawyer on tv?"
Warning shots.....Are kinda like them thar fellers that would rent a pig...Their hard to stop!
.
Last edited:
ironhead7544
Member
There were two cases in FL that I think may have influenced this new law. One was the case above. It was a bad situation that was unnecessary but that is the way things happen. There is a lot to the story but the armed lady fled to the garage trying to escape. The garage door was disabled and she could not get out so had to go back inside. When confronted by the man she was afraid of, she shot into the ceiling. Their two children were present. The warning shot did work. Would you want to shoot your spouse in front of your children?
In another case, a lady saw her teenager being beat down by a gang some distance away, a block or so IIRC. She feared for her kid, and fired a shot, I believe into the ground on her front lawn. This stopped the attack.
Remember, you have all the time in the world to Monday morning quarterback. If it is you, you may have 1/2 to a couple of seconds to decide.
cmj8591
Member
I can't envision too many scenarios where a warning shot would be helpful. I can envision a lot of scenarios where it would create more problems than it would solve. If presenting a gun in self defense doesn't stop the threat by itself, then the next step is center mass. Not the sky or the floor or anyplace other than center mass. There really is no place in the modern day force continuum where the warning shot fits.
The bill was about that too.
bhayles
Member
I was taught to NEVER pull a gun unless you fully intend to use it, and that using it consists of putting the sights on target and pulling the trigger, usually several times.
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,122
- Reaction score
- 46,975
Notice this thread starts with a bare link?
The Rules mention that-
Key passage-
The Rules mention that-
Key passage-
- Status
Similar threads
