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
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???"
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???"
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.
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???"
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.
The bill was about that too.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 following topics are restricted on this Board:
General NEWS links- very rarely. If you need every news story about every subject every day, hit one or all of the news boards.
Reasonable news links about our military, first responders, or guns might be acceptable.
News concerning political gun issues is acceptable in the 2nd Amendment forum.
This forum does not function as the Internet Newsboard Index.
Bare Links starting threads without comment or discussion won't survive.
Don't post a bare link and say "You gotta see this!".
Tell us WHY we need to see it with at least a sentence or two. Provide enough comment to explain what the link is about.
I should know what it is about before I click it.
News links may be deleted at the sole discretion of the Staff. If your link is gone, it is gone- period.
Don't post a bare link and say "You gotta see this!".
Tell us WHY we need to see it with at least a sentence or two. Provide enough comment to explain what the link is about.
I should know what it is about before I click it.