I'm not understanding why there needs to be a law either banning or allowing warning shots. Generally they are a bad idea, but in certain scenarios they might be appropriate. A warning shot should be regarded in the same way as a miss, and carry the same responsibility. If deadly force is not justified, neither is a warning shot, but in situations such as domestic violence, where a family member may be very much more reluctant to kill another family member, such as the one mentioned, it might be preferable. To simply ban them and set a mandatory penalty without evaluating the individual situation is foolish.
Florida SB 0438; new bill to allow warning shots....
- Thread starter ClydeFrog
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
A miss is an accident. A warning shot deliberately launches a lethal projectile into the unknown. That is irresponsible. Bullets can travel long distances.
I would support the law if the gun has to be aimed at your own foot for the warning shot.
I would support the law if the gun has to be aimed at your own foot for the warning shot.
carguychris
New member
Re: Post #20...
Tom Servo,
After reading the bill, I have the same concerns. I think it boils down to the interpretation of the following provision:
What does it mean to "defend life, home, or property" from... a drug pusher? How does "illegal distribution of a controlled substance" conceivably threaten any of the three?
I'm likewise concerned that a court could take a broad interpretation of this provision, and not prosecute someone who fires a warning shot when a man merely approaches her in his yard and removes a plastic baggie from his pocket.
Warning shots can KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. Legitimate protection of life and home from a dire threat is one thing; OTOH, drawing and firing a pistol should NOT be given the same effective legal status as making a 9-1-1 call to report a dope pusher.
Tom Servo,
After reading the bill, I have the same concerns. I think it boils down to the interpretation of the following provision:
(emphasis mine)
What does it mean to "defend life, home, or property" from... a drug pusher? How does "illegal distribution of a controlled substance" conceivably threaten any of the three?
I'm likewise concerned that a court could take a broad interpretation of this provision, and not prosecute someone who fires a warning shot when a man merely approaches her in his yard and removes a plastic baggie from his pocket.
Warning shots can KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. Legitimate protection of life and home from a dire threat is one thing; OTOH, drawing and firing a pistol should NOT be given the same effective legal status as making a 9-1-1 call to report a dope pusher.
Last edited:
If you are responsible enough to be aware of what is behind a person you are shooting at, you should be responsible enough to be aware of where you are firing a warning shot. Why would anyone deliberately launch a lethal projectile into the unknown whether its to kill or as a warning shot?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
In a stressful situation, are you sure that you can predict safe projectile pathways? Straight up - then your head might work as a safe direction. Can you predict the bounce path?
It's not like you are shooting in a berm with high walls.
That's not really sensible.
I've seen a rifle round fired a target down range, hit something and come back at almost 180 degrees and clobber a guy in the head. Grace of God he wasn't totalled. He did take a nasty whack though.
The bill is moronic.
It's not like you are shooting in a berm with high walls.
That's not really sensible.
I've seen a rifle round fired a target down range, hit something and come back at almost 180 degrees and clobber a guy in the head. Grace of God he wasn't totalled. He did take a nasty whack though.
The bill is moronic.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have to agree with TimSr here. Warning shots are indeed a bad idea for the most part, but at the same time, they often do work. They can be done safely (Not that people usually do them safely).
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not that people ...
That's the rub. Looking around me, I see no direction that I could absolutely trust. Not in my home, work environment or my everyday outdoor travels.
I suppose I could imagine a unique and/or rare circumstance that would make it safe. But that's as likely as the multiple zombie, meth head, biker, giant mummy attack.
What is wrong with the strong verbal command voice warnings that are common in training?
I am reminded of the Dutch Load - comes from the Dutch police and their revolvers way back when.
1. A blank
2. A tear gas round
3. two rubber or wooden balls in a round
4. Then one real bullet.
You could load your gun with a blank first.
Anything might work - that doesn't mean we should make it legal and encourage those who aren't the skilled level that we aspire to.
It's like the debate about whether you should shoot to wound. I can come up with a unique circumstance where someone might do that. It is not recommended but in that case, the risk is that you lose the fight.
If you have such a law as proposed, the average schmoo may not be so considerate of backstop, paths, etc. and just let loose into the neighborhood. It's not like every gun owner lives in a isolated wilderness compound. In a city environment - no way.
That's the rub. Looking around me, I see no direction that I could absolutely trust. Not in my home, work environment or my everyday outdoor travels.
I suppose I could imagine a unique and/or rare circumstance that would make it safe. But that's as likely as the multiple zombie, meth head, biker, giant mummy attack.
What is wrong with the strong verbal command voice warnings that are common in training?
I am reminded of the Dutch Load - comes from the Dutch police and their revolvers way back when.
1. A blank
2. A tear gas round
3. two rubber or wooden balls in a round
4. Then one real bullet.
You could load your gun with a blank first.
Anything might work - that doesn't mean we should make it legal and encourage those who aren't the skilled level that we aspire to.
It's like the debate about whether you should shoot to wound. I can come up with a unique circumstance where someone might do that. It is not recommended but in that case, the risk is that you lose the fight.
If you have such a law as proposed, the average schmoo may not be so considerate of backstop, paths, etc. and just let loose into the neighborhood. It's not like every gun owner lives in a isolated wilderness compound. In a city environment - no way.
Microgunner
New member
It's a knee jerk reaction to an isolated incident designed to pander to voters, the real business of politics.
There is little chance of it passing IMO.
There is little chance of it passing IMO.
A legal definition of "property".....
While on the surface, I agree with Florida's current use of lethal force standard that you can not use lethal force(guns) to protect property, but in reality, you need to put that into perspective.
A home owner or property owner who confronts a felon that's attempting to gain entry into the house or business can't be expected to automatically know what the crooks background is(criminal history) or what their intentions are.
You might be looked at as defending your property but under the conditions it would be reasonable. A "jury of your peers" could understand your acts.
The "Chesire Murders" incident in CT is a great example. You can not predict or assume what a subject will say or do on your property.
You can be trained & able to know what to do in these critical incidents.
While on the surface, I agree with Florida's current use of lethal force standard that you can not use lethal force(guns) to protect property, but in reality, you need to put that into perspective.
A home owner or property owner who confronts a felon that's attempting to gain entry into the house or business can't be expected to automatically know what the crooks background is(criminal history) or what their intentions are.
You might be looked at as defending your property but under the conditions it would be reasonable. A "jury of your peers" could understand your acts.
The "Chesire Murders" incident in CT is a great example. You can not predict or assume what a subject will say or do on your property.
You can be trained & able to know what to do in these critical incidents.
Double Naught Spy
New member
That is the rub for anti-gunners as well.
Certainly, warning shots are not safe all the time. Defensive shootings are not safe all the time either. People really are the proverbial loose cannon that cannot be relied upon under stressful situations. I hear ya.
We've all seen the .50 cal into soft steel bounceback video, or do you mean to suggest that no backstop is safe, that there are just too many unknowns down range to fire a gun?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc
Great broad comment that has interesting implications elsewhere as well, no doubt.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
My genius analysis is that there are too many unknowns in most circumstances to trust a warning shot to be safe.
For all I know the home defender will shoot up into the air which will send the bullet off in an unknown manner for a potentially long ride.
Will the home defender keep the gun pointed parallel to the ground? I dunno?
I can see folks who never shot a gun (in that other thread), think it is fine and dandy to shoot at a higher angle.
For all I know the home defender will shoot up into the air which will send the bullet off in an unknown manner for a potentially long ride.
Will the home defender keep the gun pointed parallel to the ground? I dunno?
I can see folks who never shot a gun (in that other thread), think it is fine and dandy to shoot at a higher angle.
Last edited:
I have deep reservations about the bill since it is so broad. However, making it always illegal to fire a warning shot is also too broad. Instead the law should punish those who discharge a weapon wantonly, recklessly, or with gross negligence. This would require a prosecutor/judge/jury to look at individual circumstances which would include the possible necessity of firing a warning shot as well as other factors such as whether the gun was pointed in a relatively safe direction, presence of others in the vicinity, and any other relevant factors. We don't have to hammer a square peg in a round hole.
I skimmed the bill, and I really don't see that much wrong with it. It does contain portions for citizens and parts that apply only to law enforcement. Don't mix the two.
While everything said about warning shots is essentially true about the risks, so they are seldom a good idea. BUT, there are situations where a warning shot has ended the situation.
Face it, there are people who will not take anything less seriously. Personally, I think giving them the clear opportunity to re-evaluate their actions before I am forced to shoot them is a good idea.
(assuming of course my read on the situation allows me the luxury, not all situations would)
I think the law should not make a warning shot alone, no one injured, a crime.
Presenting the firearm, strong verbal commands, all good. But what about when your attacker just keeps on coming? I would think that going the extra step to try and avoid lethal force should not be a punishable offense.
Sure, not all of us "live in the woods" but not all of us are wrapped in concrete in every direction, either. Certainly a warning shot should only be fired in a safe direction, and we can argue all day about losing the initiative, bad tactics, etc., I'm not advocating a warning shot, I'm just saying that if someone fires one, it should NOT be a crime, and should definitely not be one with an automatic non-negotiable sentence.
I'd be willing to bet that in places where one faces prosecution for a warning shot, that there are few warning shots, and a number of first shot misses...
While I will agree that warning shots are not something one should advocate, removing onerous criminal penalties for such an act doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I wouldn't hang the bill or its sponsor in effigy just yet. I think we need a closer look at what is actually proposed, not just act on a sound byte description.
While everything said about warning shots is essentially true about the risks, so they are seldom a good idea. BUT, there are situations where a warning shot has ended the situation.
Face it, there are people who will not take anything less seriously. Personally, I think giving them the clear opportunity to re-evaluate their actions before I am forced to shoot them is a good idea.
(assuming of course my read on the situation allows me the luxury, not all situations would)
I think the law should not make a warning shot alone, no one injured, a crime.
Presenting the firearm, strong verbal commands, all good. But what about when your attacker just keeps on coming? I would think that going the extra step to try and avoid lethal force should not be a punishable offense.
Sure, not all of us "live in the woods" but not all of us are wrapped in concrete in every direction, either. Certainly a warning shot should only be fired in a safe direction, and we can argue all day about losing the initiative, bad tactics, etc., I'm not advocating a warning shot, I'm just saying that if someone fires one, it should NOT be a crime, and should definitely not be one with an automatic non-negotiable sentence.
I'd be willing to bet that in places where one faces prosecution for a warning shot, that there are few warning shots, and a number of first shot misses...
While I will agree that warning shots are not something one should advocate, removing onerous criminal penalties for such an act doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I wouldn't hang the bill or its sponsor in effigy just yet. I think we need a closer look at what is actually proposed, not just act on a sound byte description.
Prosecutors/DAs.....
A new state law or statue isn't really necessary.
It's the discretion of the local State Atty(an elected position) & the prosecutors if a citizen is charged for firing a warning shot.
In many Florida cases they are not so why make new laws?
Another incident in the metro Orlando area involved a home owner(a USMC veteran) who reportedly shot off a warning at a crook who attempted to gain entry thru the front door of the home. The Marine Corps veteran was rattled by the event but not charged. The subject fled the scene & was not arrested.
Would a "warning shot" law help the home owner? Yes.
But the State's Atty Office & police didn't charge him.
I can see the valid points some forum members are making but I still feel the law would be misused or applied improperly.
A new state law or statue isn't really necessary.
It's the discretion of the local State Atty(an elected position) & the prosecutors if a citizen is charged for firing a warning shot.
In many Florida cases they are not so why make new laws?
Another incident in the metro Orlando area involved a home owner(a USMC veteran) who reportedly shot off a warning at a crook who attempted to gain entry thru the front door of the home. The Marine Corps veteran was rattled by the event but not charged. The subject fled the scene & was not arrested.
Would a "warning shot" law help the home owner? Yes.
But the State's Atty Office & police didn't charge him.
I can see the valid points some forum members are making but I still feel the law would be misused or applied improperly.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you face a perceived lethal threat and it keeps on coming - why a warning shot?
Do we need a radar speed gun accessory for your firearm to predict when it gets to you?
I see a circumstance where the Frankenstein monster or the Lon Chaney mummy staggers towards. But they wouldn't heed the warning shot.
If you want to make a warning shot a lesser penalty than currently, that's debatable. However, if said shot hits an innocent - no mercy for you.
I doubt there is any law on the books that hasn't at some point been misused, abused or applied improperly. But laws that lend themselves to easy abuse should be re-written.
There are essentially two issues in discussing warning shots, the actual, and the legal.
I don't think a warning shot (and I am only talking about those that harm no one) should be legal (or tactical) requirement, nor do I think they should be punished, legally.
Certainly if a perceived lethal threat keeps coming, a warning shot might be a bad idea, but what about when the threat doesn't keep coming, but doesn't flee, either?
Ok, legal says if they aren't coming at you (a threat) then you can't shoot. Or more precisely, you can't legally shoot them....
Suppose you are in the situation (hypothetical, of course) where you have issued the clear warning, presented your arm, fully prepared to do what is necessary, and the assailant(s) neither attack nor flee. What then? Putting a round into a safe place like (your wife's potted plant you never liked anyway) the ground or floor (assume it is a safe place for this discussion) maybe near their feet? Might do the trick to "speed the departing guest" as it were...
IF that is the case, having it be a punishable crime to do that seems...counter productive, to say the least. After all, in that kind of situation, where a warning shot chases off the bad guy, haven't you just saved society at large a bunch of money in medical costs and legal fees? As well as saving someone from being shot? (doing your part to reduce "gun violence"?
)If I felt a warning shot might resolve the issue without bloodshed, I would fire one. Isn't the main thing to end the issue with you on your feet and unharmed? If you can do that without harming the other guy, why should there be a legal penalty for the attempt? (ok, yes, I know it may not work, may even work against you, but that's a different matter than legal penalties after the fact...)
seems like the proposed bill is trying to take care of that. What's wrong with that? (happy to look at and discuss specifics of how the bill might, or might not work)
or am I missing something?
Bluffing, stress, time....
I can see what the last post is saying but in the real world, most felons or aggressive criminals will not hesitate or run off in a puff of smoke like a Warner Bros cartoon.
As a security officer in a low end hotel, I had a few confrontations with a few rough customers. One subject, a 57 year old male; 6'06" spent about half his adult life in prison for violent crimes. He attacked me with a large stick & ran off. The local PD later arrested & convicted the aggressive subject. Would a "warning shot" or display of a firearm deterred the subject? No. If I drew my 9mm pistol, by Florida statue(FS493) Id need to use lethal force.
Another thug/gang member I had regular contact with would not be scared of or threatened by a mere warning shot. He too, was hyper-aggressive & would lunge at or kill anyone who pointed a weapon at him without hesitation.
This new FL law might lull gun owners/license holders into a false sense of security. A "warning shot" may not scare away a evil-doer. They may become more violent.
I can see what the last post is saying but in the real world, most felons or aggressive criminals will not hesitate or run off in a puff of smoke like a Warner Bros cartoon
.As a security officer in a low end hotel, I had a few confrontations with a few rough customers. One subject, a 57 year old male; 6'06" spent about half his adult life in prison for violent crimes. He attacked me with a large stick & ran off. The local PD later arrested & convicted the aggressive subject. Would a "warning shot" or display of a firearm deterred the subject? No. If I drew my 9mm pistol, by Florida statue(FS493) Id need to use lethal force.
Another thug/gang member I had regular contact with would not be scared of or threatened by a mere warning shot. He too, was hyper-aggressive & would lunge at or kill anyone who pointed a weapon at him without hesitation.
This new FL law might lull gun owners/license holders into a false sense of security. A "warning shot" may not scare away a evil-doer. They may become more violent.
Microgunner
New member
Clydefrog,
Nothing is absolute but it seems to me that the more tools at your disposal the better off you are.
Still don't believe it'll pass though.
Nothing is absolute but it seems to me that the more tools at your disposal the better off you are.
Still don't believe it'll pass though.
True....
That's true.
I think most of the TFL members agree a new "warning shots" law would be wrong.
It might not pass but like other laws/statues in Florida & other places, some politicians vote for or support bills without really thinking them through.
The courts may not uphold these cases either. I can just see a "warning shot" incident ending in a bystander or uninvolved party being wounded.
Who pays for that civil lawsuit?
That's true.
I think most of the TFL members agree a new "warning shots" law would be wrong.
It might not pass but like other laws/statues in Florida & other places, some politicians vote for or support bills without really thinking them through.
The courts may not uphold these cases either. I can just see a "warning shot" incident ending in a bystander or uninvolved party being wounded.
Who pays for that civil lawsuit?
(Playing Devil's Advocate)
(please correct me if I am wrong on any essential point)
As it stands, in FL, if you are involved in a defensive shooting, and are fully justified, you could still be charged with a crime if you fired a warning shot, at the prosecutor's discretion.
This bill seems only to eliminate that situation. It says that if you are otherwise justified under the law to use deadly force, then there is no criminal penalty for firing a warning shot.
(please table, for the moment, discussion about the wisdom of a warning shot, or the real world possible consequences, such as striking an unintended target, etc. That is a valid discussion, but a different one)
The bill points out that it does not require a warning shot, a verbal warning, or a display of the weapon prior to the use of deadly force. What is does is remove the criminal penalty, if someone does so. AND, it only applies when the person is found to be otherwise fully within the law.
What I see this as, is the (attempted) removal from the prosecutor's tool box of this one tool. IF passed, prosecutors would no longer be able to charge you for the "crime" of firing a warning shot, at their sole discretion.
Essentially, as it stands now, even if you are found fully justified (good shoot), if they want to, the prosecutor can still come back and bite you by charging you with firing a warning shot. Its kind of a Defensive Shooter protection act, in this specifc case, and in this specific case only. It doesn't change, or even address anything relating to any damages caused by a warning shot. You are still just as responsible for where your bullet goes and what it hits as you ever were. NO CHANGE there.
I don't see this as anything that would advocate, or encourage FL citizens to fire a warning shot. In fact, I would think that most, if not virtually all of the people who would be inclined to fire a warning shot are likely unaware of the fact that currently, it is a criminal offense to do so. I would expect the news that they could be charged for doing it would be a large surprise to most of them.
I don't think removing the possibility of after the fact criminal charges for firing a warning shot, in a situation where you are otherwise found completely justified is a bad thing.
And, frankly no matter what your feelings on warning shots are, how do you justify criminal penalties (at the prosecutor's discretion) for someone who otherwise acted entirely within the law?
(please correct me if I am wrong on any essential point)
As it stands, in FL, if you are involved in a defensive shooting, and are fully justified, you could still be charged with a crime if you fired a warning shot, at the prosecutor's discretion.
This bill seems only to eliminate that situation. It says that if you are otherwise justified under the law to use deadly force, then there is no criminal penalty for firing a warning shot.
(please table, for the moment, discussion about the wisdom of a warning shot, or the real world possible consequences, such as striking an unintended target, etc. That is a valid discussion, but a different one)
The bill points out that it does not require a warning shot, a verbal warning, or a display of the weapon prior to the use of deadly force. What is does is remove the criminal penalty, if someone does so. AND, it only applies when the person is found to be otherwise fully within the law.
What I see this as, is the (attempted) removal from the prosecutor's tool box of this one tool. IF passed, prosecutors would no longer be able to charge you for the "crime" of firing a warning shot, at their sole discretion.
Essentially, as it stands now, even if you are found fully justified (good shoot), if they want to, the prosecutor can still come back and bite you by charging you with firing a warning shot. Its kind of a Defensive Shooter protection act, in this specifc case, and in this specific case only. It doesn't change, or even address anything relating to any damages caused by a warning shot. You are still just as responsible for where your bullet goes and what it hits as you ever were. NO CHANGE there.
I don't see this as anything that would advocate, or encourage FL citizens to fire a warning shot. In fact, I would think that most, if not virtually all of the people who would be inclined to fire a warning shot are likely unaware of the fact that currently, it is a criminal offense to do so. I would expect the news that they could be charged for doing it would be a large surprise to most of them.
I don't think removing the possibility of after the fact criminal charges for firing a warning shot, in a situation where you are otherwise found completely justified is a bad thing.
And, frankly no matter what your feelings on warning shots are, how do you justify criminal penalties (at the prosecutor's discretion) for someone who otherwise acted entirely within the law?