Welcome to the Florida Gun Forum!

Visit Standard Mfg. Co. LLC!Visit Target Sports USA!Learn more about Florida Gun Exchange here!See Remora holsters here!

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Warning shot" legislation a fiction.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Warning shot" legislation a fiction.

    Dont get in trouble because you don't understand the law. SB-448 does NOT permit warning shots.

    In summary SB-448 provides:

    No statutory authorization for firing “warning shots ”—indeed, the statutory language would deny justification to any “warning shot” that “poses a threat to public safety,” which would seem to apply to all but the rarest circumstances.
    No substantive change to stand-your-ground.
    Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of a person, the mere threat is also lawful in defense of a person.
    Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of a home, business, or occupied vehicle, the mere threat of force is also lawful in defense of a home, business, or occupied vehicle.
    Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of personal property or to prevent a forcible felony, the mere threat of force is also lawful in defense of personal property or to prevent a forcible felony.
    Where immunity would attach to a use of force, immunity will similarly attach to a mere threat of force.
    Allows for expunction of criminal history associated with a lawful act of self-defense.
    - http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04...overnors-desk/
    Last edited by 305tillimove; 06-24-2014, 08:24 AM.

  • #2
    I do not feel that smart. Can someone translate legalese to normal-speak?
    Man... I am all full of sarcasm. I should chill and find a quiet place to lay down.

    Oh wait. I will when I'm done.

    Comment


    • Bige
      Bige commented
      Editing a comment
      When I first read the bill I took it as "you can pull your weapon to scare off the threat". I'll still stick to the old belief that if I pull it then it's going off

  • #3
    yes there is a lot of people do not know what this was about, if you fired a gun in self defence you want end up doing 10-20-life

    Comment


    • #4
      Originally posted by rzach View Post
      yes there is a lot of people do not know what this was about, if you fired a gun in self defence you want end up doing 10-20-life
      That's always been the case. In the case inspiring the "warning shot" law, the woman was found guilty of a crime. In other words, the jury determined she did not fire in self defense, as allowed under statute. Had the jury determined it was self defense, she wouldn't have been subject to mandatory sentencing and the silliness in the State capitol would be about something else.

      Jeff

      Comment


      • #5
        [QUOTE=weaselfire;n269055]

        That's always been the case. In the case inspiring the "warning shot" law, the woman was found guilty of a crime. In other words, the jury determined she did not fire in self defense, as allowed under statute. Had the jury determined it was self defense, she wouldn't have been subject to mandatory sentencing and the silliness in the State capitol would be about something else.

        Jeff[/QUOTE



        Be fore whether you had been accused of pulling a gun are discharging a weapon in a real self defense you face 10 to 20 years in prison ( if you pull you gun and did not have to shoot that person he could call the police and tell them that you had a gun and it was off to jail for you)

        Comment


        • #6
          Not really.

          http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0448

          Originally posted by The Law
          Threatened Use of Force; Prohibiting the court from imposing certain mandatory minimum sentences if the court makes specified written findings; applying provisions relating to the use of force in defense of persons to the threatened use of force; applying presumption relating to the use of deadly force to the threatened use of deadly force in the defense of a residence and similar circumstances; applying immunity provisions that relate to the use of force to the threatened use of force; providing that a person is not justified in the threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, etc.
          It strikes down minimum sentences. It also puts the use of force defense conditions on the threatened use of force (i.e. "warning shot"), so the same valid defenses for using a gun now apply to threatening to use a gun, etc. Therefore you can use one any time you are threatened with deadly force.

          Don't get me wrong, though: I am against warning shots. I'm just saying this is the law now. I think warning shots are the retarded assertion of people who've watched too much television.

          This is the summary of the bill that I have quoted. The real thing is far longer. See here:

          http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill...llText/e1/HTML

          So regardless of what the law says, I say warning shots are stupid and I recommend people not try to fire warning shots. Brandishing (which is its own law) should be enough; if it's not, the whole "I don't always fire warning shots, but when I do, they're center mass" meme applies.

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by rzach View Post
            Be fore whether you had been accused of pulling a gun are discharging a weapon in a real self defense you face 10 to 20 years in prison ( if you pull you gun and did not have to shoot that person he could call the police and tell them that you had a gun and it was off to jail for you)
            Still not right. Barring the fact that before you're accused you face no sentence, the 10/20/Life sentencing law has nothing to do with justified shootings, self-defense or otherwise. The display of a weapon did not automatically trigger a 10/20/Life sentence (10 years if the gun is not fired). You would need to be carrying a gun during the commission of a felony. For the case in question, there would have been no felony charge if she did not fire, thus no mandatory sentence.

            There are two problems though:

            First, mandatory sentencing, designed to shape up lenient judges, can always (many would say will always) backfire and trap someone it wasn't meant to apply to. When the 10/20/Life rule was proposed, this particular situation was the argument against it. It's actually surprising that it took this long for an event to unfold.

            The second problem is that the case in question, Marissa Alexander firing a shot inside her home while being threatened by her estranged husband, was not determined to be either stand your ground (technical issues, she left the area and returned) nor was it found to be self defense by the jury. That automatically made it a felony, during which a firearm was discharged. That met mandatory sentencing requirements. So she got the mandatory sentencing, no other option.

            The solution was not this new law, but a repeal of the mandatory sentencing. Judges are supposed to have discretion, and this judge indicated that a shorter sentence was far more appropriate but could not be enacted.

            The "warning shot law" has a probpem with perception. That won't be cured until it's been used over time and there is case law, but the law is fairly simple and fairly straightforward. The problem is that it's a law written to clarify a previous law.

            Jeff

            Comment


            • #8
              Well said.
              Proud Supporter Of President Trump

              Comment


              • #9
                So, to recap in normaleeze,

                The current 'law' is that (1) as long as there is a reliable threat (yes, yes this is the courtroom debate) I can draw and/or fire. Under this scenario The self defense laws MAY kick in.
                HOWEVER, simply pointing a gun willy-nilly, or just shooting a weapon in a random direction (warning shot or not) CAN be considered a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence.

                Am I getting close in my understanding? I am sorry to be so thick with this. I just want to have a basic understanding and sometimes sentence parsing can really get in the way.
                Last edited by Frgood; 06-26-2014, 07:10 AM.
                Man... I am all full of sarcasm. I should chill and find a quiet place to lay down.

                Oh wait. I will when I'm done.

                Comment


                • #10
                  If one really believes their life is in danger and a warning shot would be effective, maybe just calling it a missed shot instead of a warning shot would have less legal ramifications.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by Frgood View Post
                    The current 'law' is that (1) as long as there is a reliable threat (yes, yes this is the courtroom debate) I can draw and/or fire. Under this scenario The self defense laws MAY kick in.
                    HOWEVER, simply pointing a gun willy-nilly, or just shooting a weapon in a random direction (warning shot or not) CAN be considered a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence.

                    Am I getting close in my understanding? I am sorry to be so thick with this. I just want to have a basic understanding and sometimes sentence parsing can really get in the way.
                    Under the new law, you still cannot draw or shoot unless there is a credible threat.

                    This new law changes nothing as far as self defense shootings go. It changes nothing at all in fact, other than preventing the use of mandatory sentencing for the event. The problem in perception is from the media, not really the law. In fact, as I read through the law and the opinions on it (legal, not FOX opinions...), it really looks like the outcome in this case would still have been the same. Since she was convicted of a felony by a jury trial, neither self defense nor warning shots seem to apply.

                    Don't forget, the case hinged on the fact that she safely left the confrontation, retrieved a gun and came back (no stand your ground there) and that her estranged husband had the legal right to be in the location he was. The case is only flawed in that she got a longer than deserved sentence and that her attorney (and she) did not make a deal for a misdemeanor in the first place. By the evidence and a jury trial, she did commit a felony. There's no avoiding that part.

                    The media keeps comparing it to Zimmerman, who did not claim any stand your ground (and maybe should have, but that's a different debate). It's also compared to the case in Jacksonville, which was never near a self-defense case since using deadly force to quiet a radio is never going to be legal.

                    Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Frgood
                      Frgood commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Thank you for this response. I do feel better that I think I understand the conversation what is going on here. Mandatory sentencing is something that should be given very serious thought before implementation. Sort of like a 'no tolerance' policy.
                      While I do appreciate trying to get things black and white, Reality is something to be considered.

                  • #12
                    Originally posted by weaselfire View Post

                    Still not right. Barring the fact that before you're accused you face no sentence, the 10/20/Life sentencing law has nothing to do with justified shootings, self-defense or otherwise. The display of a weapon did not automatically trigger a 10/20/Life sentence (10 years if the gun is not fired). You would need to be carrying a gun during the commission of a felony. For the case in question, there would have been no felony charge if she did not fire, thus no mandatory sentence.

                    There are two problems though:

                    First, mandatory sentencing, designed to shape up lenient judges, can always (many would say will always) backfire and trap someone it wasn't meant to apply to. When the 10/20/Life rule was proposed, this particular situation was the argument against it. It's actually surprising that it took this long for an event to unfold.

                    The second problem is that the case in question, Marissa Alexander firing a shot inside her home while being threatened by her estranged husband, was not determined to be either stand your ground (technical issues, she left the area and returned) nor was it found to be self defense by the jury. That automatically made it a felony, during which a firearm was discharged. That met mandatory sentencing requirements. So she got the mandatory sentencing, no other option.

                    The solution was not this new law, but a repeal of the mandatory sentencing. Judges are supposed to have discretion, and this judge indicated that a shorter sentence was far more appropriate but could not be enacted.

                    The "warning shot law" has a probpem with perception. That won't be cured until it's been used over time and there is case law, but the law is fairly simple and fairly straightforward. The problem is that it's a law written to clarify a previous law.

                    Jeff
                    BEFORE the law took afect
                    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-marion-hammer

                    http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com...-warning-shot/

                    http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/30...#ixzz2Unkq1e8b

                    prosecutors will all ways take the easy way out.

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Um... One is Medford, Oregon. No amount of Florida legislation will help.

                      Mobley, the watchman in Tampa, did not actually face a threat of violence. So far, no court case on this. The guard in Orlando fired into an apartment, to break up a fight that wasn't in that apartment. Again, no actual threat of violence. Again, too recent to have any court response.

                      Seriously, both these guys would have been arrested after passage of the new law. Both should not have firearms if they are as irresponsible as news accounts seem to make them.

                      But, I give up. You win. I bow to your supreme intellect.

                      Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        I have never fired a warning shot, or will. I have missed a time or too ;) !
                        Why do I carry? Somebody else will pick the day I need my gun, not me.

                        Comment

                        There are currently 107 users online. 1 members and 106 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 769 at 11:54 AM on 04-13-2016.

                        Working...
                        X