Skip to comments.FLORIDA LAWMAKERS PASS WARNING SHOT LEGISLATION, NOW HEADS TO GOV. SCOTT
Posted on 04/05/2014 12:01:01 AM PDT by kingattax
On April 3rd, the Florida senate passed warning shot legislation by a vote of 32-7. The state house had already passed the measure, so it now goes to Gov. Rick Scott (R) for his signature.
If signed, this legislation will make it legal to fire a warning shot as a last step before shooting an attacker who has launched an assault.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
A prison guard told me they explained the warning shot to inmates to deter escapes. The first shot is a kill shot as the guard yells “stop or I’ll shoot.” The second shot is fired into the air.
An average man can run 30ft/scd. Most people, who launch attacks do not run the length of a football field to do it. That warning shot may be the only time you get to fire that gun before the assailant knocks you dow.
This legislation is going to get somebody killed.
Never fire a warning shot!
Why the second shot??
For some of us, this is great, I hope it spreads.
My lawyer of 40 years who is now departed, told me a long time ago that the first shot is into the intruder. The second shot is into your ceiling or floor. When the police come, you can point to the warning shot you fired. He added, make sure the intruder is dead.
Florida has long had laws regarding penalties for firearms used in crimes. There are distinct prison terms for brandishing, firing a shot without doing harm, and wounding or killing with firearms.
The problem was that prosecutors were getting convictions for law abiding people who merely displayed a weapon, or fired a shot in the air, in order to prevent harm to themselves.
This legislation was designed to correct that injustice.
Joe Biden is happy. Firing into the air can kill someone and people should be prosecuted if that happens
Ah, I thought it was a reaction to the Trayvon Martin fiasco, requiring a person to fire a warning shot before a kill shot.
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re going to unlawfully harm somebody, the consideration that you might die by doing so is your warning shot.
I agree, this law is the result of an overzealus prosecutor. A woman is serving 20 years under mandatory sentencing guidlines for firing a warning shot as her ex was threatening her.
My understanding of that particular case was that she was able to vacate the room he was in, but went back into the room with a gun.
Warning shot my ass. You shoot center mass to stop the attack.
Yes but that case is what broke the camels back and got the politicians involved.
So, if this new bill is signed into law, is her re-trial cancelled?
This is standard LEO training. You don’t shoot to kill. You don’t shoot to wound. You shoot center mass to stop an attack. Period.
In the ongoing struggle between citizens and thugs, this kind of legislation simply puts one more legal tool in the citizen’s tool bag. I think it’s great and hope it passes and gets Marissa Alexander out of her life sentence.
Stop confusing people with the facts
20 years for each warning shot served consecutively if the prosecutor has her way. that’s life in prison - mandatory.
This is a bad idea!
‘Warning shots’ are stupid and dangerous. That bullet is coming down somewhere or it could ricochet if fired at the ground.
If you are legally and morally justified in using deadly force, then use it decisively. Your aim is to plant every bullet you fire into a vital organ of the person or persons who pose the threat to whomever you are defending. Wasting your limited ammo on this is pretty poor tactics. You think you’re going to have a chance to reload? You’d better have some pretty good distance and cover between you and the bad guys. Ever try reloading after running a hundred yard dash and falling blindfolded off the end of a diving board into ice water? Because that is what a sudden deadly force encounter is going to do to your fine motor skills.
Warning shots ‘permitted’ will almost immediately become warning shots ‘required’. One more legal defense hurdle you will need to overcome. “Only one warning shot? Why didn’t you fire two? Why didnt you empty your whole cylinder ‘warning’ him? You seemed awfully eager to shoot, weren’t you?”
I imagine a few warning shots reaching innocent bystanders.
Good idea —
If Curtis Reeves had fired a warning shot his victim would probably still be alive and he wouldn’t be spending the rest of his life in jail for murder.
If I fired a “warning shot” and HIT the perp, could I claim I HAD fired a warning shot but missed?
I await the hoards to comment.........just asking.
They're not MANDATING a warning shot - they're going to stop the harsh prosecution of folks who opt to fire one. Currently, if you shoot someone, and it was self-defense, you're good to go. If you fire a warning shot, your looking at 10-20 years (mandatory sentences) depending on the situation.
Situational awareness is an on-the-ground responsibility and there are some cases where a warning shot might be useful and/or save a life from being unnecessarily snuffed out. I fail to see the downside of removing the out-sized punishments and allowing folks to make personal observations and choices.
Under current law you could also fire a “warning shot” but claim that you tried to shoot the perp but missed or that the gun went off prematurely.
Why waste a waste a round? Watch some idiot now come up with you now have to count to 10 before the next round can be fired.
That’s the warning shot, apparently.
Why start with the premise that you need take a life just because you can - even if you might not have to?
Once again, the point being missed about the Florida law - it is designed to remove the mandatory 10-20 year imprisonment of those who opt to fire a warning shot. It broadens the options of those who choose to be armed to defend themselves.
from Justified we learned the 21 foot rule. If the separation is less than 21 feet, the advantage is to the skilled man with a knife.
Just be sure there is not a hole to fall in between you and the man with the gun. Danny Crowe taught the rule but failed to see the hole and died by his own knife
I don’t care how many laws they pass, if I am attacked the first (of many) shots aimed center mass can be considered the “warning shot”.
I suppose there could be a scenario where a warning shot would be appropriate, but it escapes me.
Florida news ping.
I can tell you this has been ALL but IGNORED by the Miami news media...it would, after all, make the Republican legislature look good in the eyes of many Miami citizens AND it would redound to the benefit of the Republican party governor Rick Scott.
The Miami media is ALL IN for Charlie Crist, the pro-sodomite Democrat for governor.
Why stand and wait for the perp to take my life because I chose to spare his wasting precious seconds! If you want a warning shot, go perp the neighbor!
And I think we all know the real reason for the law!
I fired a shot into the air, it came to Earth I know not where...bad idea, waste of ammo.
Interesting, that is exactly how warning shots will be delivered in my home, and I have said so for decades.
There was only one shot. It's three counts because she endangered three people. There were also two children standing with her husband. It's also not the prosecutor's call. The sentence is a mandatory minimum by law.
The law doesn’t allow warning shots. It allows someone to threaten the use of force in the same situation where the actual use of force would have been legal. In other words, if it would have been self-defense to shoot someone, it will now also be self-defense to threaten to shoot someone. It wasn’t before, and because Florida has strict mandatory laws involving the use of a gun, people would get serious prison time for threatening to do something that would have been legal if they’d done it.
But it also requires that any threat of force must not pose a risk to public safety, which pretty much rules out any wild warning shots. The exact opposite of what people are saying about this law.
Note that none of this applies to the Marissa Alexander case because she wasn’t acting in self defense.
Since they are mandatory sentences, the prosecutor has nothing to do with it.
Also, Marissa Alexander is not serving any time now. She is awaiting retrial. If she goes to trial, if the prosecutor doesn't offer her a plea, she will be convicted again. She didn't fire a warning shot, her husband wasn't threatening her. She didn't act in self defense.
I assume you mean Marissa Alexander. This bill has no bearing on the facts of her case. She wasn't acting in self defense.
First, it doesn't allow firing warning shots. Second, assuming for a moment it did, there would be no need to claim that. It allows the threat of force in the same situation where the use of force would be legal. There's no looser standard for the threat. If you'd be ok with a threat, you'd be ok if you hit him.
that's a 10 second hundred yard dash ... hardly average
Unless it's at the center of mass.