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

the unlucky, well they were just unlucky, that as well is on the guy who started it all.



Good luck with that in court.... :eek:

Fire a warning shot and hit a kid down the street... you are not gonna like the results.


Willie


.
 
lcpiper said:
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.
Click to expand...

This thinking is so incredibly dangerous. You are absolutely right, in that a shooting situation is already dangerous. Here's the difference between shooting a bad guy in self defense and shooting a warning shot to scare him off. In the first situation, you are firing into a backstop (the bad guy). With a warning shot, you are completely ignoring Rule #4. You have no target, and are not aware of your backstop. There is a word for this...negligence. If you fire a warning shot, scare off your attacker, but that stray round hits and kills someone, you will very likely get convicted of negligent homicide or manslaughter. Whereas if you shot the bad guy, as long as it was a legal shoot, you'll likely get off without any kind of conviction.

Let's say you fired a warning shot and it didn't scare off your attacker and you had to shoot him. I can pretty much guarantee the prosecutor will use that against you to show the jury your level of negligence, even if everything else is legal.

Remember, our VP Uncle Joe is saying we should crank off warning shots, even though it is illegal and dangerous. Warning shots are stupid and negligent. You are responsible for every round that leaves your gun. If you're firing you weapon in self defense, you better have a target.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this. Just so you know, if you ever are in court for a self defense shooting, they are going to find everything you wrote online (facebook, twitter, blogs forums, etc.) as evidence. I certainly wouldn't want that statement you just wrote put in front of 12 people who have the responsibility of deciding my fate.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

It is justifiable in an attempt to prevent worse consequences and should be given such credence in the law.
 
There are two issues here: one is whether or not something is a good idea. The other is whether or not something should be illegal.

"Brandishing", i.e. showing your weapon, may be required in a self defense scenario and shouldn't be illegal under those circumstances.

Firing a warning shot is a very bad idea in almost all circumstances, but still shouldn't be illegal. In other words, if you happen to be in one of the rare situations where it made sense to fire a warning shot, you shouldn't be arrested for it.
 
What warning shot

Warning shot? Here in Miami we call that a "please call my lawyer shot"
You are going to need a lawyer and a pocket full of money if you bring a weapon into play. And just where is this warning shot suppose to go?
I have had numerous incidents where I was not carrying for whatever reason or when I was carrying where I was lucky a sense of humor deescalated the situation. I go into crappy places all the time, supposedly empty houses, houses secured with no signs of forced entry and low and behold some nutty homeless guy is in a closet! Heart racing and body shaking once you know you made a huge mistake and the only exit is not where you want it to be.
I have my own interpretation of stand your ground and that is " if possible retreat or step back" If my weapon comes out 99.99 percent chance the threat level is going to be like a tube of tooth paste, not easy to get back in.
I only carry Cor Bon rounds and hope to have the same rounds years from now and be free to shoot them if and when need arises. No am not LEO
Read about the kid who shot someone stealing a jet ski from the homes dock here and the world of hurt that goes with each shot. I will take the shot with no hesitation once my mind has told me now or never.
 
LE too...

A few years ago, a sworn LE officer in Melbourne Florida fired warning shots at a thief who stole a tip jar from a Tijuana Flats restaurant counter & fled on foot. :rolleyes:

Warning shots or trying to scare people is stupid. There is a lot of risk involved. Shooting at a subject as they flee could bring a lot of legal problems, criminal & civil.

ClydeFrog
 
Several posters are giving short answers, on the lines of "this is a very bad idea."

The thing is, there are at least two ideas under discussion in the context of the proposal in the article, and the discussion in this thread:

1) Legalizing (and determining the rules for) display of a weapon as a force level below that of deadly force, for situations where the need for deadly force could reasonably be anticipated should the situations continue as trending;

and

2) Warning shots.

So, for the short answer posters (Skans, Merad, etc) would you mind addressing each issue separately? IE do you think both ideas are horrible, or are you keying in on the warning shots?

And note to ClydeFrog, you keep pointing out jack-ass behavior. I would suggest that such actions are the result of poor judgement, not knowledge of what the law may or may not allow, and that such people will be stupid regardless of what the law may say.
 
MLeake said:
1) Legalizing (and determining the rules for) display of a weapon as a force level below that of deadly force, for situations where the need for deadly force could reasonably be anticipated should the situations continue as trending;
Click to expand...

I have no issue at all with granting a level of immunity for "display of a weapon for self defense" but I would want it to meet a recognizable standard for such immunity to be granted.

2) Warning shots.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with warning shots.
 
I just feel like warning shots have far too high a risk of collateral damage for whatever supposed good they do.

I feel like that if displaying the gun, or clearing leather doesn't work, then the use of force is justified and therefore shoot to stop the threat.
 
Warning shots

Just shoot up into the air! You have Joe Bidens OK to do this! Its also OK to shoot thru the door. Wait, didn't something just like this happen in South Affrica? Let's see how this works out! Maybe Joe will take a trip to South Africa to be an expert witness for the defense!
 
I think that's a good idea for Florida. I think it would be great if a person could prevent a situation that may result in someone getting shot by simply lifting their shirt to reveal a gun. Like someone mentioned previously, if its late at night and they're being boxed in by some suspicious looking characters then revealing a gun might save a shooting.


I'm not sure about warning shots though, if the situation is that bad then I wouldn't be firing over their heads.
 
In late 70's or early 80's a cop in Knoxville fired a warning shot to try to halt a young man who the cop thought to be stealing a car.
The young man had in fact been trying to start his own car and had just gotten the car headed downhill to try to start it. He could not simply halt or freeze with his carheaded dowhill so he had jumped into the drivers seat to apply the brakes.
The shot the cop had fired upwards hit an over pass and ricoheted at a downward angle hitting the young man in the head.
 
Really true stories...

I disagree with the "hey, just show the bad guys you have a loaded firearm then they will back off" tactic.
That could go sideways very quickly in a # of ways.
The one big point could be(not always but a possible problem) is a DoJ/Civil Rights Div "hate crime" complaint.
Joe Bad Guy could be "furtive" or hinky as all get out around you. You "flash" your weapon or pull it out then he runs to a sworn, uniformed LE officer saying you we're screaming threats at him or racist slurs, waving a gun at him.
The cop or cops could review any CCTV/security camera system footage or public safety systems, watch you & your actions, then make a formal arrest. :rolleyes:

Street thugs & gang members lie ALL THE TIME. The police or sheriff deputies may not find them credible but a gun collar(arrest) will be a nice report for their HR file/career review(s). If they can ID you pulling a firearm or "trying to scare off" someone, you(the armed citizen/license holder) may get busted.

Years ago, in the late 1990s, I had a concealed carry permit & toted a big 96D in a Aker shoulder rig. On a cold winter night at a city bus stop in a lower income area, I saw a street guy going up & down the public bus area, "sizing up" the people waiting for the next bus.
I calmly & quietly slid my strong hand inside my thick leather jacket & undid the snap on my Aker holster. As the thug moved towards me, I made direct eye contact with him but didn't say anything. The guy looked at me, looked around the bus stop, then quickly walked far away down the street. I didn't have anymore trouble there. ;)

Clyde
 
ClydeFrog,

The same racial things could be cast at a shooter in a legit shoot on a thug that was just wounded.

Also, if you brandish your weapon at someone, shouldn't you call 911 ASAP

I had a guy pull an ASP and started running at me angrily screaming what all he was going to crush on me. When I drew on him, and hollered "stop", luckily he did, about ten feet away. He started backing up when he saw my ccw pointed at him.

I'm very thankful he did cause I guarantee you this guy was not going to beat on me and I surely don't want to shoot anyone.

I realize that this same scenario could have played out differently but it didn't. In this case, brandishing worked.... de-escalated the situation to the point that I could get away and call 911.

FWIW, after giving description of vehicle to LE, the aggressor was arrested about a half hour later in his vehicle and charged with a raft of charges. Being he was a felon and an ASP in the State of Ohio is considered a weapon and Mr. Felon had no ccw permit, the Judge was less then impressed to say the least. 'Homey' went back to prison.
 
Points...

Shorts points are valid.
If you are in a critical incident(lethal force incident) you should contact 911/LE whenever it's safe to do so, ASAP.
Some armed citizens or license holders may have been in a serious event, had stress or panic then ran off. Author, sworn LE officer & gun magazine writer Massad Ayoob wrote about this topic a few times.
Does flight = guilt? No, but you should be ready to contact the police or LE agency ASAP then explain your side of events(keeping in mind your civil rights & or legal defense).

ClydeFrog
 
In this case, brandishing worked.... de-escalated the situation to the point that I could get away and call 911.
Click to expand...

You were in the process of being attacked, and if the attack hadn't stopped, you would have shot. An ASP is considered a lethal weapon (for head strikes), and I imagine you could articulate, whether you had to fire or not, that you were in fear for your life. This is not brandishing, as the term usually means. In most cases, where a gun is drawn, the situation is de-escalated prior to a shot being fired. When states have defensive display laws, it's usually for allowing display when you are simply being threatened, not being actually attacked. In your situation, you met the criteria for use of lethal force, meaning it's no longer a brandishing/defensive display situation. Fortunately for you, and your attacker, he stopped and you didn't have to fire.
 
There are an awful lot of things being labeled stand your ground issues these days. As this non-lawyer understands it, SYG originally meant that there was no requirement to retreat to the maximum extent possible before defending yourself. That is something to which few if any of us would object.

I am not sure that I am in favor of a blanket permission to brandish a firearm, simply because there are people who would abuse such permission. IMO, a person who draws a firearm should be able to articulate a threat, in the same way but perhaps to a lower standard than the immediate threat of death or serious harm that is required for firing shots.

Warning shots? Almost always a bad idea, as noted in previous posts. But in the rare occasions in which a warning shot is carefully considered and carefully placed, without risk to passersby, I don't think it should automatically be a cause for criminal charges.

I guess I am looking for balance: On the one hand, I don't want undue restrictions on the defensive use of firearms; on the other hand, I don't want the gun community to look like a bunch of irresponsible yahoos, either. If we support laws that say that we don't have to abandon our families and our possessions and our basic rights of being in a lawful location before we defend ourselves (the original intent and wording of SYG, as I understand it) we look reasonable. I am afraid that if we give the media a reason to start saying that we want to be able to pull a pistol on anyone we think looks at us sideways, or to spray bullets around randomly in public places, it could mean a setback for our more basic and important rights to carry and defend ourselves.
 
There are an awful lot of things being labeled stand your ground issues these days. As this non-lawyer understands it, SYG originally meant that there was no requirement to retreat to the maximum extent possible before defending yourself. That is something to which few if any of us would object.
Click to expand...

That's basically it, but an important part that you missed is that you have no requirement to retreat somewhere you have a legal right to be. This could be your home, your friends home, a public place, etc. But if you decide, for example to carry a gun somewhere that's a posted "no guns" area, in many states, you're trespassing, and you do not have a legal right to be there. You'd better retreat in this situation, because SYG won't apply.

I am not sure that I am in favor of a blanket permission to brandish a firearm, simply because there are people who would abuse such permission. IMO, a person who draws a firearm should be able to articulate a threat, in the same way but perhaps to a lower standard than the immediate threat of death or serious harm that is required for firing shots.
Click to expand...

I'm with you here. I think the term brandishing is a bad one. Brandishing, to me, has negative connotations. I picture a thug waving a Glock Foh-tay around. I like the term that Arizona uses, "Defensive Display." I believe you should be able to "uncover" or display, or grip your gun in it's holster as a deterrent, as long as you can articulate a threat. I do not think you should be able to draw without there being an immediate threat to life or limb. I'm sure some would disagree with me here, but I see making a law like that, a lot of people will use that as an excuse to bring a gun into what would normally be just a verbal or "fists" confrontation, which has the possibility of escalation. This of course can be debated.

Warning shots? Almost always a bad idea, as noted in previous posts. But in the rare occasions in which a warning shot is carefully considered and carefully placed, without risk to passersby, I don't think it should automatically be a cause for criminal charges.
Click to expand...

I just can't think of any situation where a warning shot will dissuade an attacker, where the muzzle of a gun pointing at their face wouldn't. Going a bit further, using your language of "carefully considered and carefully placed." I'm not going to use precious reaction time to find a good backstop for a warning shot. I also see this being abused as well. Rule 4 is always in effect. Know your target and what's beyond it. The rules of safe gun handling do not go away in a shooting scenario. I cannot think of a single situation where a warning shot would be tactically advantageous to someone who is being attacked. If the presence of a firearm isn't enough to dissuade someone, then 2 JHP's to center mass hopefully will...not a round to the dirt berm (if there's a suitable backstop, that you've wasted time and focus looking for) behind him.

I guess I am looking for balance: On the one hand, I don't want undue restrictions on the defensive use of firearms; on the other hand, I don't want the gun community to look like a bunch of irresponsible yahoos, either. If we support laws that say that we don't have to abandon our families and our possessions and our basic rights of being in a lawful location before we defend ourselves (the original intent and wording of SYG, as I understand it) we look reasonable. I am afraid that if we give the media a reason to start saying that we want to be able to pull a pistol on anyone we think looks at us sideways, or to spray bullets around randomly in public places, it could mean a setback for our more basic and important rights to carry and defend ourselves.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. We are in a huge PR battle right now. Allowing people to willy nilly brandish, or shoot rounds over a threats head makes us look irresponsible and negligent. SYG is common sense. If I have a right to be somewhere, someone shouldn't be able to force me to retreat. I believe it's smart to retreat if you can, but you shouldn't be required to. We already have PR nightmares to try to come back from (Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook, Aurora) the last thing we need is a headline reading, "3 Year Old Shot and Killed by Gun Owner Firing Warning Shot."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top