Florida SB 0438; new bill to allow warning shots....

Interesting analysis. My view is that you should be only criminally responsible IF you shoot an innocent with the warning shot.

However, how does this play out?

Here comes the shuffling mummy (to be silly).

You say - Stop, don't come closer, I am in fear of my life.

Then BANG.

The round doesn't enter the mummy. Is it miss or a warning shot?

Do you have say:

Stop, don't come closer - YOU darn Mummy. Here's a warning shot for you!

Do you have to announce it's a warning? Missing is perfectly acceptable - although you will suffer the consequences for where the round goes.

So if you hit the tree as a miss, it is OK. If you say -Warning Shot and hit the tree it is not ok?

Isn't the best solution to say you missed? Don't say Warning Shot?

Confusing?
 
GEM said:
Do you have to announce it's a warning? Missing is perfectly acceptable - although you will suffer the consequences for where the round goes.
Click to expand...

I would say this bill, or rather the idea behind it, may be for those who are less knowledgeable on self defense issues. While I do not condone the idea, I have heard many, many people over the years who say they would fire "a warning shot" into the ground/tree/what have you. Is it risky legally? Yes. But the debate I have had with these same folks are they just want to hopefully scare someone off, and not harm them. These same folks would probably freely admit to the responding LE and possibly place themselves in jeopardy legally speaking.

I admit I don't want to harm another human either, even though I am against "warning shots" but I am not sure this bill is a wise idea to go forward with.
 
Last edited:
Yard-birds, "eye-witnesses"....

As someone who's worked armed security/G in various parts of Florida(Pensacola, Palm Beach County, Orlando, Tampa, etc) I can honestly tell you, the "warning shot" will be taken completely out of context or you'll be unfairly accused of criminal misconduct by the responding LE officers & criminal investigators. :rolleyes:
Some "yard-bird" or bystander will jump up when the PD shows up and crow about how you were reckless or screaming threats repeatedly before you gunned down the poor helpless victim, :rolleyes:.
Warning shots(legal or otherwise) will make you(the armed citizen or license holder) "dangerous" & "unstable".
The recent "high profile criminal trial" in central Florida showed how that can occur. The Sanford FL police investigator wanted to put a manslaughter charge on the subject & build a police case saying he fired the Kel-Tec 9x19mm pistol "by accident".
If that subject fired a "warning shot" in that critical incident, there's no doubt in my military mind, the accusation of a "hate crime" or malice would be pushed further. :rolleyes:
Witnesses can say what they want to LE. There is no requirement for them to understand the law or use-of-force statues.

Clyde
 
I do not believe in warning shots, legal or not. If I am going to pull the trigger of my firearm in a self defense situation, it'd be with my sights on the threat. If they're lucky enough to not die from the first shot, let them consider that as their "warning." If my life is in danger, or I firmly believe that my life is in danger I wouldn't be screwing around wasting time with "warning shots." If a cocked and locked firearm is not enough of a deterrent, I HIGHLY doubt that firing it in the air is going to get a better response. I would not risk taking my sights off the target to fire a warning shot either. It's going to cause a 'fight or flight' response, but what if that response is 'fight?' And if you've got some sort of pump shotgun, or anything that requires re-cocking or manually chambering a round after a shot, it gives the threat an opening, on top of the surge of adrenaline that YOU just gave them, by firing your gun in the air.

IMO, your 'warning' is that cocked and locked firearm being pointed at the threat. If the threat isn't smart enough to back down at that point. Don't expect them to be smart enough back down from a warning shot.
My $.02
 
OK, we get that there is tons of risk in firing a warning shot. Apparently in some places more legal risk to a warning shot than a "miss".

Fine. I'm not about to argue with that.

What I'm asking, again, is how a bill that removes a possible legal penalty for someone "foolish" enough to fire a warning shot (and harming no one), how is that a bad thing?
 
44 AMP said:
...how a bill that removes a possible legal penalty for someone "foolish" enough to fire a warning shot (and harming no one), how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Despite what I wrote earlier, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing in concept. The problem IMHO is that this bill is written in an overly broad way.

IMHO the problems are twofold:
  • I'm alarmed by the unreasonable and imprudent inclusion of drug dealing in the spectrum of "unlawful activit[ies]" for which verbal displays and warning shots are OK under this law.
  • The bill seems to strongly imply that making a verbal warning, displaying a firearms, and firing a warning shot are OK in situations where deadly force is NOT otherwise warranted.
SB 0438 seemingly allows these actions in response to trivial threats against the actor. OTOH I would have no objection to a bill saying something like this:

"A person who is acting in defense of life, home, or property, and who makes a verbal warning or a defensive display of a firearm, or fires a warning shot, is immune from prosecution if that person reasonably believes that the action will prevent an unlawful activity or terminate an actual unlawful activity that otherwise warrants the use of deadly force under Section(s) [name of sections authorizing the use of deadly force for crimes of violence, sexual assault, protection of property, etc.]."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top