Stand Your Ground in Florida - Brandishing and Warning Shots??

R

raisitup

New member
Just read this in the Orlando Sentinel, a Central Florida state congressman wants to broaden Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law to include immunity for brandishing your weapon and/or firing a warning shot, the idea for both being that it would scare away your attacker.

Terrible idea in my opinion. In CCW classes I've always been taught never to fire a warning shot, is that because it's generally against the law or a bad idea, or both? I've rolled my eyes many times at the "wild west" meme that anti's turn to whenever gun laws are relaxed (especially concealed carry laws) but I can't help but think these provisions would make the state less safe and yes, I'll say it, a little "wild west'ish".

Thoughts?

Florida bill would broaden 'stand your ground' (link may be behind a paywall if you frequent the Sentinel, if so just refresh and click STOP on your browser as soon as you see text and the nag box won't show)

Ryan
 
1. That report has an air of rumorish untruthfulness about it, especially after the TM shooting.

2. Regardless to the merits, that sounds as dumb as my youngest wiener dog, who has finally gone a whole month without getting trapped by a blanket. :eek:
Its a recipe for disaster and a bazillion lawsuits.

More to the point those two are effectively already covered. One should only draw when one is prepared to use deadly force and is in the appropriate level of fear for their person. Of course a Texan's version of a warning is a little different and best summed up as "I'm warning you, stop or I shall shoot you some more." :eek:
 
Offhand, I'd say that Florida's "stand-your-ground" law has received enough bad press as it is, without asking for more. The merits of immunity for brandishing are debatable, I suppose. But as to immunity for warning shots, no way. That's just flat-out irresponsible.

And filing the bill on the anniversary of Trayvon Martin's death is, umm, not in very good taste.
 
Funny, my dad was NYPD for 33 years, from the 50s to the 80s, and in that time, he fired exactly one shot while on duty - a warning shot. The perp stopped running and was arrested...........

Whether someone should receive immunity - especially if their warning shot injures or kills someone - sounds like a bad idea. But brandishing? if you pull your weapon at, say a gas station where someone is attempting to rob or car jack you - and it stops the attack with no one getting hurt/killed, I am for that
 
I see absolutely nothing wrong with defining an authorized show of force; this is used by both law enforcement and the military. However, I would not call it "brandishing."

Some states allow the showing of a weapon as a deterrent, after certain triggers are met; those triggers are below the threshold for deadly force justification, but sufficient to justify the threat of force if necessary.

If Florida were to define such instances, I don't see how that would lead to a wild west scenario.
 
I agree with MLeake, I would like to see the act of clearing leather, when your are actually threatened of course, given legal protection.

Our ROE always mandated us to use the minimal amount of force necessary to end a situation and required the avialability of a non-lethal option.
 
Mylicensesite.com...

For details about Florida & the legal issues check out; www.mylicensesite.com www.myfloridalegal.com www.floridafirearmslaw.com www.myflorida.com .

EDIT; I saw a media item about a local sworn LE officer in Florida(also a USMC Reserve member) who does private citizen firearms training; www.overwatchft.com .

Warning shots outside of a state park or national forest incident are stupid & reckless. Florida class G(armed security & PIs/PI interns) are instructed by law(FS 493) NOT to fire warning shots.
The Florida Div of Licensing stresses in the handbooks(which are free to anyone & take 2/3 weeks to get by mail) that 493 license holders are NOT sworn law enforcement or have a special license to discharge or brandish firearms.

Some private citizens may say; "Hey, isn't it a double standard for LE to draw weapons or have different use of force standards?"
I say; no, sworn LE officers take a oath to uphold & enforce the law. They are mandated to face dangerous & high risk events. Private citizens are not.
A citizen can't chase a criminal down the street & make a arrest.
Now many 2A supporters & license holders like the late Robert Boatman; www.BoatmanBooks.com say that citizens have a moral & social obligation to prevent or stop crime. I agree with that belief to a point. You can carry a weapon to protect yourself or others and you can use lethal force in a critical incident but if you go looking for danger or act in a irresponsible way(like a vigilante) you will get in big trouble.
The recent Walmart parking lot incident in central Florida is a good example.

ClydeFrog
 
Last edited:
ClydeFrog,

If I find myself confronted by a couple panhandlers in a Wal-Mart parking lot, late at night, and notice a third moving out to my flank, and should they ignore my verbal requests (then commands) to cease... should it be a crime for me to show a weapon, in pursuit of encouraging all three to stop what they are doing?

Depending on the jurisdiction, if I can't show that they were a direct threat to life and limb, I could easily be charged with brandishing.

Now, you and I both know that maneuvers of that sort are typically the prelude to strong-arm or armed robbery; I for one can certainly state that in very precise terms, and I can point to formal training about such things to back me up. A lot of other folks could not so articulate a scenario, though their intuition would have correctly identified threat behavior - and such people are much more likely to be charged, not because they did anything wrong, but because they can't explain why what they did was justifiable.

You keep throwing around terms like vigilante, and wannabe. Please share your definitions of vigilante, and of wannabe, and let me know what either term has to do with showing of a weapon as an attempt to deter a building threat.

I do have to wonder about your motivations. Back when I was studying psychology, much was made of "projection," or the tendency to see others as likely to behave the way we think we would, if we could.

My counter-argument is that if the law clearly identified situations where showing a weapon would be justifiable, it would prevent people from being charged for having tried to head off a problem before they were actually forced to open fire.

With regard to warning shots, I don't generally agree with those. I can see some utility, in some scenarios, but those generally involve packs of aggressive canids, and a good backstop. For the most part, otherwise, I consider warning shots to be reckless (where is the bullet going?) and a waste of good self-defense ammo.

But I can see many scenarios where showing a weapon might very well stop a scenario from escalating to the actual need to use deadly force - with the caveat that the person showing the weapon had better be ready to use it if the show of force does not stop the escalation.
 
I agree that you should be able to brandish your weapon if the situation calls for it.

As far as a warning shot, aren't you ready to fire anyways? If you need a warning shot, a shot in the assailant's direction is a shot either way. Firing a shot up in the air is reckless for many people and I imagine even yourself (cutting down the number of bullets you have, showing the opponent you're not immediately ready to fire at them). As far as I know, most incidents either stop when the weapon is brandished or continue to the point where a shot (warning shot or otherwise) is justified. If you have to fire, most of the times it happens between 2-5 feet with 1-3 shots. I wouldn't want to risk one of those 3 shots being an ineffective warning shot.

Then again, I suppose there might (maybe?) be a situation where a warning shot is the final step to diffusing.
 
But I can see many scenarios where showing a weapon might very well stop a scenario from escalating to the actual need to use deadly force - with the caveat that the person showing the weapon had better be ready to use it if the show of force does not stop the escalation.
Click to expand...

This.

What has always bothered me is the "all or nothing" system we currently use. I I think it forces us to use lethal force when it might very well have been avoided in the first place.

On the flipside, I can see how it could escalate a situation fatally when it would not have been so otherwise :confused:
 
Posts; Walmart-shoplifter event...

By "vigalante" or reckless I mean a armed citizen(with no police powers or a LEOSA) doing any illegal(as defined by the state or municipality) activities.

I posted a message in training & tactics about the recent(02/2013) shoplifter event in the "space coast" area of Florida.
There are different standards for use of force & a armed citizen or licensed armed professional(PI, EP agent, security officer) should learn what they can or can not do.
The right to carry concealed weapons or the ability to own/carry weapons is always under constant criticism by many elected officials & some in the media.
Gun owners & armed security/concealed license holders should be mature adults who use common sense and/or good judgement in critical incidents.

As for the "projection" issues, I'm not sure what that means. I'd rather discuss that with Dr Phil Magraw or Dr Drew Pensky than a college student or a PhD candidate.
We(the TFL forum) should share & exchange ideas or remarks in a civil, mature manner. That's not complicated.

ClydeFrog
 
There are different standards for use of force & a armed citizen or licensed armed professional(PI, EP agent, security officer) should learn what they can or can not do.
The right to carry concealed weapons or the ability to own/carry weapons is always under constant criticism by many elected officials & some in the media.
Gun owners & armed security/concealed license holders should be mature adults who use common sense and/or good judgement in critical incidents.
Click to expand...

Not that I dissagree with you on any majot level but I do want to point something out.

By whose standards?

By who's standards will you judge someone of sound judgment and capable common sense.

Where and how do you draw the line for who may be allowed to protect themselves and who may not?

I know some people who I don't think carrying a gun is such a great idea. But is it my place to decide they can't possess a means to defend themseleves?

Oh, I got it, we'll form a committee. But will it be a committee of gun salesmen or a committee of Fienstiens?

You do see where I am heading and you do remember that little bit at the end of the 2A that we all are very fond of, "shall not be infringed". Not much grey area to that one.

So how do you decide? or do you have the right to decide?

Tell me, why do we even bother keeping guns out of criminals hands when we all know it can't be done. Why do we even bother with a law that says they can't buy them?

I mean they get them anyway and use them anyway and we charge them after the fact all the same anyway.

So why even bother?

We got too many laws and rules and garbage already. We need to stop worrying over what someone might do with a gun and start dealing with the people who have done something with a gun and cut out the nonsense.
 
Warning shots are dumb. I would not support any law that allows them. They are dangerous, and anyone who does it is just asking for trouble. As far as brandishing, I'm ok with that, depending on the wording. In Arizona, where I live, they have a "defensive display" law. Basically, if you are in fear of imminent injury or death, you may display your gun. This means you may announce you have one, put your hand on it, or pull up your concealing garment to show it. It does not protect from drawing your gun. It's very vague in the wording, and no one is really sure if the situation to defensively display requires less than that of actually drawing and firing. It also hasn't been tested in court. Personally, if I'm in fear of imminent injury or death, I'm drawing, and possibly firing (if the situation warrants it).
 
If I find myself confronted by a couple panhandlers in a Wal-Mart parking lot, late at night, and notice a third moving out to my flank, and should they ignore my verbal requests (then commands) to cease... should it be a crime for me to show a weapon, in pursuit of encouraging all three to stop what they are doing?



Absolutely not: The law notwithstanding, it would be excellent tactics. Confrontations usually start out as ambiguous ones as the criminal sizes up the potential victim... there should be no reason to wait until they are comitted to the offense before taking steps to win the defensive game. The best tactic is to keep them 10 yards away.

And, best guess... no self respecting LEO would make an issue out of it. Who is going to make the complaint? The panhandlers? You would likely be reholstered within ten seconds and be on your way. You "might" want to be the first to call 911... you might just want to go home. That's the problem with ambiguity.... no clear choice.

I can tell you that law or no law, I'd have my hand on my sidearm even if I left it holstered, and there would be no two ways about it. My verbal commands, posture, and form would leave no doubt as to the next step being contemplated. A man standing unafraid with his hand under his jacket clearly commanding "Sir, I am warning you that I believe that you are threatening me. Do not come any closer" is not an easy mark... and smart criminals would back off.

Warning shots? Uh.... not me. I own the bullet from the time I load it until the time it comes to rest. The only backstop I will use in a case of self defense is a bad guy...:o



Willie

.
 
Last edited:
ClydeFrog, you have a point with regard to civility.

However, I find your frequent assumptions that concealed carriers who consider the pros and cons of assisting others are vigilantes or wannabes to be uncivil.
 
Last edited:
I got no problem with warning shots. although I know the law is not in my corner on this. I'll give you my reasoning.

Some will point out that bullet has to come back down or go somewhere or hit something and this creates a danger. All this is true, but the danger is already there. The danger I am in that I must pull and perhaps fire a gun overshadows the danger that a warning shot may impose on an innocent. I am innocent too. I am not the bad guy I did not create the problem. I am protecting myself and I deserve any and all means available to me to see myself safely home. The other guy get's no consideration and the unlucky, well they were just unlucky, that as well is on the guy who started it all.
 
lcpiper, that
the unlucky, well they were just unlucky, that as well is on the guy who started it all
Click to expand...
is not necessarily true.

In some states, that may be true in a criminal sense, and in some, it may be true in a civil sense, but I certainly would not wish to be the test case.

In other states, civil liability would almost definitely attach, and criminal liability could, depending on how reckless the circumstances might make a warning shot seem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top